|
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
President Ronald Reagan was so great. He was so great the Polish people want
to put up his statue in Warsaw and other cities... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....i9acjrf8.html Isn't it ironic some foreign countries love America more than the Democrats do? Cheers, Ellen |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message reenews.net... President Ronald Reagan was so great. He was so great the Polish people want to put up his statue in Warsaw and other cities... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....i9acjrf8.html Isn't it ironic some foreign countries love America more than the Democrats do? Cheers, Ellen Ironic, perhaps. Predictable, indeed. Max |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:26:23 -0500, "Ellen MacArthur"
wrote: President Ronald Reagan was so great. He was so great the Polish people want to put up his statue in Warsaw and other cities... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....i9acjrf8.html Isn't it ironic some foreign countries love America more than the Democrats do? Cheers, Ellen Here is a tribute from the uk.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBNsp...elated&search= |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message reenews.net... President Ronald Reagan was so great. He was so great the Polish people want to put up his statue in Warsaw and other cities... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....i9acjrf8.html Isn't it ironic some foreign countries love America more than the Democrats do? Cheers, Ellen Ironic, perhaps. Predictable, indeed. Max Reagan was also either a liar or in the early stages of Alzheimer's. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
... On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:26:23 -0500, "Ellen MacArthur" wrote: President Ronald Reagan was so great. He was so great the Polish people want to put up his statue in Warsaw and other cities... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....i9acjrf8.html Isn't it ironic some foreign countries love America more than the Democrats do? Cheers, Ellen Here is a tribute from the uk.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBNsp...elated&search= Proof that Reagan lied! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message hlink.net... "Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message reenews.net... President Ronald Reagan was so great. He was so great the Polish people want to put up his statue in Warsaw and other cities... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....i9acjrf8.html Isn't it ironic some foreign countries love America more than the Democrats do? Cheers, Ellen Ironic, perhaps. Predictable, indeed. Max Reagan was also either a liar or in the early stages of Alzheimer's. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com What is wrong with being a liar? |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message . .. What is wrong with being a liar? Nothing, unless you're a Republican. Capt SV |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
. .. "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message hlink.net... "Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message reenews.net... President Ronald Reagan was so great. He was so great the Polish people want to put up his statue in Warsaw and other cities... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....i9acjrf8.html Isn't it ironic some foreign countries love America more than the Democrats do? Cheers, Ellen Ironic, perhaps. Predictable, indeed. Max Reagan was also either a liar or in the early stages of Alzheimer's. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com What is wrong with being a liar? You would know. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Capt. JG" wrote in message What is wrong with being a liar? You would know. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Of course I know. I also know what a glaring hypocrite is. What do you hold others to standards that you yourself fall so short of? Amen! |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
... "Capt. JG" wrote in message What is wrong with being a liar? You would know. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Of course I know. I also know what a glaring hypocrite is. What do you hold others to standards that you yourself fall so short of? Amen! I think you're an expert on the subject, so why don't you tell us. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
|
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message . .. "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message hlink.net... "Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message reenews.net... President Ronald Reagan was so great. He was so great the Polish people want to put up his statue in Warsaw and other cities... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....i9acjrf8.html Isn't it ironic some foreign countries love America more than the Democrats do? Cheers, Ellen Ironic, perhaps. Predictable, indeed. Max Reagan was also either a liar or in the early stages of Alzheimer's. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com What is wrong with being a liar? Nothing, if you're a Democrat. Max |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message . .. "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message hlink.net... "Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message reenews.net... President Ronald Reagan was so great. He was so great the Polish people want to put up his statue in Warsaw and other cities... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....i9acjrf8.html Isn't it ironic some foreign countries love America more than the Democrats do? Cheers, Ellen Ironic, perhaps. Predictable, indeed. Max Reagan was also either a liar or in the early stages of Alzheimer's. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com What is wrong with being a liar? Nothing, if you're a Democrat. Max According to you, apparently. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
... On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:26:23 -0500, "Ellen MacArthur" wrote: President Ronald Reagan was so great. He was so great the Polish people want to put up his statue in Warsaw and other cities... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....i9acjrf8.html Isn't it ironic some foreign countries love America more than the Democrats do? Cheers, Ellen Here is a tribute from the uk.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBNsp...elated&search= Amusing. Lampoons one of Ronnie's most endearing aspects. -- jlrogers±³© |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"jlrogers±³©" wrote in message
. net... "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:26:23 -0500, "Ellen MacArthur" wrote: President Ronald Reagan was so great. He was so great the Polish people want to put up his statue in Warsaw and other cities... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....i9acjrf8.html Isn't it ironic some foreign countries love America more than the Democrats do? Cheers, Ellen Here is a tribute from the uk.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBNsp...elated&search= Amusing. Lampoons one of Ronnie's most endearing aspects. -- jlrogers±³© Despite my complete disagreements with Reagan about just about everything, I liked the guy. Met him once when he was governor. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message .net... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message . .. "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message hlink.net... "Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message reenews.net... President Ronald Reagan was so great. He was so great the Polish people want to put up his statue in Warsaw and other cities... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....i9acjrf8.html Isn't it ironic some foreign countries love America more than the Democrats do? Cheers, Ellen Ironic, perhaps. Predictable, indeed. Max Reagan was also either a liar or in the early stages of Alzheimer's. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com What is wrong with being a liar? Nothing, if you're a Democrat. Max According to you, apparently. According to you. You're the one who seems to believe Clinton's lies to a grand jury were no big deal, simply because it was about a blow job, and because no one died. Max |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "jlrogers±³©" wrote in message . net... "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:26:23 -0500, "Ellen MacArthur" wrote: President Ronald Reagan was so great. He was so great the Polish people want to put up his statue in Warsaw and other cities... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....i9acjrf8.html Isn't it ironic some foreign countries love America more than the Democrats do? Cheers, Ellen Here is a tribute from the uk.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBNsp...elated&search= Amusing. Lampoons one of Ronnie's most endearing aspects. -- jlrogers±³© Despite my complete disagreements with Reagan about just about everything, I liked the guy. Met him once when he was governor. Poor Ronnie Raygun. That was probably the inception of his Alzheimer's. g Max |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message .net... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message . .. "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message hlink.net... "Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message reenews.net... President Ronald Reagan was so great. He was so great the Polish people want to put up his statue in Warsaw and other cities... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....i9acjrf8.html Isn't it ironic some foreign countries love America more than the Democrats do? Cheers, Ellen Ironic, perhaps. Predictable, indeed. Max Reagan was also either a liar or in the early stages of Alzheimer's. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com What is wrong with being a liar? Nothing, if you're a Democrat. Max According to you, apparently. According to you. You're the one who seems to believe Clinton's lies to a grand jury were no big deal, simply because it was about a blow job, and because no one died. Max He lied about a consenual affair between two adults. It's not uncommon for this to happen in court, and people are rarely prosecuted for this sort of lie. While it's not admirable, it certainly can't be compared to the lies perpetrated by the Bush administration. It certainly can't be compared to what Libby and probably Cheney did when they outed Plame. But, feel free to think otherwise, if you can call that thinking. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"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'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. 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? 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? 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. Max |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
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. |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
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. |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
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. |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... 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. 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? |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
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... |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"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 |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com