"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.


It's not uncommon for this to happen in court, and people are rarely
prosecuted for this sort of lie.

This would be the "everyone does it" excuse.

I'm not saying it was right. I'm saying that these sort of perjury issues
are rarely prosecuted.

While it's not admirable, it certainly can't be compared to the lies
perpetrated by the Bush administration.

Republican lies are always worse than Democrat lies, regardless of the
subject matter, right?

In this case, the lies caused 1000s+ to die. Do you think they're equal?

It certainly can't be compared to what Libby and probably Cheney did when
they outed Plame.

Valerie Plame was no longer a field operative. She was driving a desk.
And neither Libby nor Cheney outed her. Haven't you been listening to the
news?

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

But, feel free to think otherwise, if you can call that thinking.

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.


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

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.

"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.


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

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:35:37 -0500, Capt. JG wrote
(in article ):

"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.




When you speak of impeachment just remember who is next inline. Probably why
it has not happened yet. Who knows maybe someone will hang cheney out to dry
during the trial.

--
Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass

"Mundo" wrote in message
. net...
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:35:37 -0500, Capt. JG wrote
(in article ):

"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.




When you speak of impeachment just remember who is next inline. Probably
why
it has not happened yet. Who knows maybe someone will hang cheney out to
dry
during the trial.

--
Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass



I'm thinking they should impeach Cheney actually. Bush isn't worth the
effort.

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

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

Capt. JG wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.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.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:45:52 -0500, katy wrote
(in article ):

Capt. JG wrote:
"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.


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.

Are you suggesting this was a conspiracy to make Bush look stupid. We don
need no stinkin conspiracy. I will stand as an American (Canadian when I
travel) and say it. He intentionally deceived the american public. Like
religeon.. the only proof was faith. The american public needs to grow some.

--
Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass

Mundo wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:45:52 -0500, katy wrote
(in article ):


Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.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.


Are you suggesting this was a conspiracy to make Bush look stupid. We don
need no stinkin conspiracy. I will stand as an American (Canadian when I
travel) and say it. He intentionally deceived the american public. Like
religeon.. the only proof was faith. The american public needs to grow some.

No..I didn't sat that at all. I said that it has not been proven in a
court if law and that like any other citizen of these United States, he
is innocent until proven guilty. Until then, it's opinion.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:53:32 -0500, katy wrote
(in article ):

Mundo wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:45:52 -0500, katy wrote
(in article ):


Capt. JG wrote:

"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.



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.


Are you suggesting this was a conspiracy to make Bush look stupid. We don
need no stinkin conspiracy. I will stand as an American (Canadian when I
travel) and say it. He intentionally deceived the american public. Like
religeon.. the only proof was faith. The american public needs to grow some.

No..I didn't sat that at all. I said that it has not been proven in a
court if law and that like any other citizen of these United States, he
is innocent until proven guilty. Until then, it's opinion.

I think bush is a liar.

I think he intentionally deceived the american people

I think he is in so deep in the BS bag that all he can smell at this point is
his own ass.

I think Cheney is dirty

I think that he also deceived the American people intentionally

I think the religious right ought to spend more time acting as "christians"
rather than interpreting story books to their personal needs.

I will agree with you that all are innocent until proven guilty unless you
are a casualty of this lie... to date there are at least 3700 of our troops
and mercenaries. I have no idea of the amount of civilians killed. I am sure
it adds up.




--
Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass

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

Capt. JG wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.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."

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