Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#19
![]()
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT Reagan Legacy in Perspective | General | |||
OT Bush is certainly no Reagan | General | |||
( OT) Ronald Reagan R.I.P (But in perspective) | General |