|
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 25, 9:10*pm, hk wrote:
wrote: On Jan 25, 8:30 pm, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:49:47 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:16:29 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: News for harry... Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with a fat chick. Oh, and your "filter" is acting up again. Sure he was. Oh, technically, it was related to "lying under oath" about sex. Y-A-W-N. The whole business was nothing more than a GOP witch hunt to "get" Clinton, and wasn't worth even an asterisk. It was uncovering the tip of an iceberg, and that's just all they could get him for. *He and Monica could have gone at it until they were both blind, and if he had not committed perjury, there wouold have been no impeachment. *Period. Had the Repubs not been out to "get" Bill on "something," there would have been no impeachment, period. After trying for years, all the Repubs could do was nail him because he lied about sex. I can hardly wait for the subpoenas and grand juries next year. They won't be about sex or lying about sex, either. Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded because of Liberal lies. You forgot this: That wouold be great. *Their facilitators are Albright, Clinton, Dean, Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were beating the war drum for Iraq even before Bush was elected. Remember this video? Bush and Cheney lied, and thousands died, and for nothing.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Blah,blah, blah....... blah, blah... * *Bush shot back, tough ****. Why do you think the oil is going up again, now? Who do you think the oil rich sponsors of terrorism want in office, republicans who shoot back or democrats who will not? * * *duh, math is constant, one and one is always two... Bush shot back, but at the wrong targets, and he's still shooting at the wrong targets. Tell that to the guys taking fire over there... Those with the oil love Bush. At $100 or close to it a barrel, oil is selling for four times what it was when Bush presumed office. My point exactly... You think the oil boys give a rat's ass about who dies in Iraq so long as they are grossing four times as much per barrel as they did when President Nincompoop took over? I do not presume to know what anyone is thinking, I am not a democrat... |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 25, 9:17*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 9:10 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 8:30 pm, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:49:47 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:16:29 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: News for harry... Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with a fat chick. Oh, and your "filter" is acting up again. Sure he was. Oh, technically, it was related to "lying under oath" about sex. Y-A-W-N. The whole business was nothing more than a GOP witch hunt to "get" Clinton, and wasn't worth even an asterisk. It was uncovering the tip of an iceberg, and that's just all they could get him for. He and Monica could have gone at it until they were both blind, and if he had not committed perjury, there wouold have been no impeachment. Period. Had the Repubs not been out to "get" Bill on "something," there would have been no impeachment, period. After trying for years, all the Repubs could do was nail him because he lied about sex. I can hardly wait for the subpoenas and grand juries next year. They won't be about sex or lying about sex, either. Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded because of Liberal lies. You forgot this: That wouold be great. Their facilitators are Albright, Clinton, Dean, Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were beating the war drum for Iraq even before Bush was elected. Remember this video? Bush and Cheney lied, and thousands died, and for nothing.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Blah,blah, blah....... blah, blah... Bush shot back, tough ****. Why do you think the oil is going up again, now? Who do you think the oil rich sponsors of terrorism want in office, republicans who shoot back or democrats who will not? duh, math is constant, one and one is always two... ======================= Oil: Which time period are you referring to? Examples: "today", or "the last 48 hours", that sort of thing. I've been hittin' the Red Rose tea pretty hard for the past hour, so I'm pretty ****ed up. I'm not following what you are connecting to the "oil going up" idea. Can you clarify?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - pfffffttttt... ==================== Great. You type these things and hit the "send" button before making sure you can explain them. You must be embarrassed, although you will pretend that you somehow "won".- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not at all, I just don't feel like playing with drunks tonight... |
What is it about Democrat leaders
wrote in message
... On Jan 25, 9:17 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 9:10 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 8:30 pm, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:49:47 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:16:29 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: News for harry... Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with a fat chick. Oh, and your "filter" is acting up again. Sure he was. Oh, technically, it was related to "lying under oath" about sex. Y-A-W-N. The whole business was nothing more than a GOP witch hunt to "get" Clinton, and wasn't worth even an asterisk. It was uncovering the tip of an iceberg, and that's just all they could get him for. He and Monica could have gone at it until they were both blind, and if he had not committed perjury, there wouold have been no impeachment. Period. Had the Repubs not been out to "get" Bill on "something," there would have been no impeachment, period. After trying for years, all the Repubs could do was nail him because he lied about sex. I can hardly wait for the subpoenas and grand juries next year. They won't be about sex or lying about sex, either. Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded because of Liberal lies. You forgot this: That wouold be great. Their facilitators are Albright, Clinton, Dean, Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were beating the war drum for Iraq even before Bush was elected. Remember this video? Bush and Cheney lied, and thousands died, and for nothing.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Blah,blah, blah....... blah, blah... Bush shot back, tough ****. Why do you think the oil is going up again, now? Who do you think the oil rich sponsors of terrorism want in office, republicans who shoot back or democrats who will not? duh, math is constant, one and one is always two... ======================= Oil: Which time period are you referring to? Examples: "today", or "the last 48 hours", that sort of thing. I've been hittin' the Red Rose tea pretty hard for the past hour, so I'm pretty ****ed up. I'm not following what you are connecting to the "oil going up" idea. Can you clarify?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - pfffffttttt... ==================== Great. You type these things and hit the "send" button before making sure you can explain them. You must be embarrassed, although you will pretend that you somehow "won".- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not at all, I just don't feel like playing with drunks tonight... ======================= Anyone who disagrees with you is a drunk, especially if they point out your stupidity. I understand now. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 25, 10:10*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 9:17 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 9:10 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message .... On Jan 25, 8:30 pm, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:49:47 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:16:29 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: News for harry... Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with a fat chick. Oh, and your "filter" is acting up again. Sure he was. Oh, technically, it was related to "lying under oath" about sex. Y-A-W-N. The whole business was nothing more than a GOP witch hunt to "get" Clinton, and wasn't worth even an asterisk. It was uncovering the tip of an iceberg, and that's just all they could get him for. He and Monica could have gone at it until they were both blind, and if he had not committed perjury, there wouold have been no impeachment. Period. Had the Repubs not been out to "get" Bill on "something," there would have been no impeachment, period. After trying for years, all the Repubs could do was nail him because he lied about sex. I can hardly wait for the subpoenas and grand juries next year. They won't be about sex or lying about sex, either. Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded because of Liberal lies. You forgot this: That wouold be great. Their facilitators are Albright, Clinton, Dean, Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were beating the war drum for Iraq even before Bush was elected. Remember this video? Bush and Cheney lied, and thousands died, and for nothing.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Blah,blah, blah....... blah, blah... Bush shot back, tough ****. Why do you think the oil is going up again, now? Who do you think the oil rich sponsors of terrorism want in office, republicans who shoot back or democrats who will not? duh, math is constant, one and one is always two... ======================= Oil: Which time period are you referring to? Examples: "today", or "the last 48 hours", that sort of thing. I've been hittin' the Red Rose tea pretty hard for the past hour, so I'm pretty ****ed up. I'm not following what you are connecting to the "oil going up" idea. Can you clarify?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - pfffffttttt... ==================== Great. You type these things and hit the "send" button before making sure you can explain them. You must be embarrassed, although you will pretend that you somehow "won".- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not at all, I just don't feel like playing with drunks tonight... ======================= Anyone who disagrees with you is a drunk, especially if they point out your stupidity. I understand now.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Loogis, Chuck, Jim, Harry, Salty, are just a few of the others here who disagree with me all the time, you are the only one I think is a drunk.. and not worth engaging... |
What is it about Democrat leaders
wrote in message
... On Jan 25, 10:10 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 9:17 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 9:10 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 8:30 pm, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:49:47 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:16:29 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: News for harry... Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with a fat chick. Oh, and your "filter" is acting up again. Sure he was. Oh, technically, it was related to "lying under oath" about sex. Y-A-W-N. The whole business was nothing more than a GOP witch hunt to "get" Clinton, and wasn't worth even an asterisk. It was uncovering the tip of an iceberg, and that's just all they could get him for. He and Monica could have gone at it until they were both blind, and if he had not committed perjury, there wouold have been no impeachment. Period. Had the Repubs not been out to "get" Bill on "something," there would have been no impeachment, period. After trying for years, all the Repubs could do was nail him because he lied about sex. I can hardly wait for the subpoenas and grand juries next year. They won't be about sex or lying about sex, either. Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded because of Liberal lies. You forgot this: That wouold be great. Their facilitators are Albright, Clinton, Dean, Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were beating the war drum for Iraq even before Bush was elected. Remember this video? Bush and Cheney lied, and thousands died, and for nothing.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Blah,blah, blah....... blah, blah... Bush shot back, tough ****. Why do you think the oil is going up again, now? Who do you think the oil rich sponsors of terrorism want in office, republicans who shoot back or democrats who will not? duh, math is constant, one and one is always two... ======================= Oil: Which time period are you referring to? Examples: "today", or "the last 48 hours", that sort of thing. I've been hittin' the Red Rose tea pretty hard for the past hour, so I'm pretty ****ed up. I'm not following what you are connecting to the "oil going up" idea. Can you clarify?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - pfffffttttt... ==================== Great. You type these things and hit the "send" button before making sure you can explain them. You must be embarrassed, although you will pretend that you somehow "won".- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not at all, I just don't feel like playing with drunks tonight... ======================= Anyone who disagrees with you is a drunk, especially if they point out your stupidity. I understand now.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Loogis, Chuck, Jim, Harry, Salty, are just a few of the others here who disagree with me all the time, you are the only one I think is a drunk.. and not worth engaging... =================== But, you keep engaging me. Why is that? And, when you call me a drunk, you are ****NEVER**** able to address the reason why. That's amusing. You're like a child having a tantrum. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:13:06 -0500, JG2U wrote:
Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing. Clinton was guilty of one, but we was not guilty of the other. You're correct, Einstein. One is lying in a court of law under oath, the other is just lying. And you're wrong, Clinton is guilty of both. Seems to be a pattern of lying with the liberals, especially in this NG. Cite? Before you tax yourself, in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. Clinton was *never* convicted of perjury. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:24:53 -0500, Kippered wrote:
Of which was he guilty? Wouldn't lying be a subset of perjury? He was guilty of lying. Perjury is a crime, and in this country, to be guilty, one needs to be convicted. Clinton was never convicted of perjury. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:15:52 -0500, BAR wrote:
The perjury was when he made false statements to a federal judge. He was sanctioned and disbarred form the Supreme Court. That wasn't perjury, it was contempt. I'll repeat, Clinton was never convicted of perjury. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
|
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:06:51 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Linda Tripp Not liked on either side of the aisle. http://www.srmaxclass.org/JenniferFitzgerald_Bush.htm |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:19:45 -0500, hk wrote:
wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:15:52 -0500, BAR wrote: The perjury was when he made false statements to a federal judge. He was sanctioned and disbarred form the Supreme Court. That wasn't perjury, it was contempt. I'll repeat, Clinton was never convicted of perjury. "disbarred form the Supreme Court." snerk And, technically, he was suspended for five years, at least in Arkansas. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "disbarred". |
What is it about Democrat leaders
|
What is it about Democrat leaders
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:09:23 -0000, wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:13:06 -0500, JG2U wrote: Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing. Clinton was guilty of one, but we was not guilty of the other. You're correct, Einstein. One is lying in a court of law under oath, the other is just lying. And you're wrong, Clinton is guilty of both. Seems to be a pattern of lying with the liberals, especially in this NG. Cite? Before you tax yourself, in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. Clinton was *never* convicted of perjury. President Clinton was held in contempt of court by judge Susan D.Webber Wright for willfully failuring to truthfully testify under oath. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...nton.contempt/ His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas and later by the United States Supreme Court. He was also fined $90,000 for giving false testimony. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...nton.contempt/ The definition of perjury is: Perjury: Law. The willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry. How exactly wasn't he convicted of perjury if his license to practice law was revoked and he was fined for not telling the truth? Come on - you are smarter than that. Yup. Bill Lied About Sex. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:01:49 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 4:55 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:38:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message . .. A question mark does not belong at the end of the sentence in the form I wrote it. No competent student of our native would disagree. You asked how to write a question that was clearer. I suggested that you should try ending questions with a question mark. I made no comment other than that about your deficient writing skills. What is a "student of our native"? LOL! It's called a typo. Now, onward: Verson 1) I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. Version 2) I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want? Are you telling me that YOU believe version 2 to be easier for you to understand, the only difference being the presence of the question mark? I'm beginning to believe the critics here who claim you are a severe alcoholic. Why do you say that?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - When my kids were younger I told them not to use that tone it sounded rude, they insisted they did not mean to sound rude. Stay with me here;) I told them that I did not care, it was my perception that they sounded rude so as subordinates it was up to them to figure out what it was they were doing and stop it anyway, until then they would be grounded when I heard that tone. BTW, did not take them long to figure it out. Iirc, till about the first friday night dance;) Pardon the spelling, I hope you can thrash through on context. ============================= What "tone" are you referring to? That's it. You're grounded. Now, when you figure it out, you can go out again. Oh, and keep off the computer in the meantime. -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:06:51 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:48:36 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. I said ILLEGAL. Of course not. But it *is* illegal to swear under oath that you did not in a lawful investigation. It's called perjury. Eisboch Yes, I know perjury is illegal, but that's not the question I asked, now is it? If you disagree, be a linguist for a moment and show me how I could've written my question more clearly. Your question is impossible to answer. First of all, you are leaving out a whole bunch of contributing factors, including the stupid woman (forget her name) Linda Tripp I met her at a party after all the notoriety. She is ugly as homemade soap, and has the same disposition. -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message om... On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@comca st.com... wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:24:18 -0500, Kippered wrote: Harry, it's not the sex. I know this is, for you, especially hard to understand. The guy *perjured* himself. That means lying. Believe it or not, most folks consider that wrong. Of course, you and your buddy find nothing wrong with that because it gains you notoriety, and some probably think it's right cool. But it isn't. Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing. Clinton was guilty of one, but we was not guilty of the other. Don't you remember Bill pointing his finger at us and saying "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski!" Let's ask the wives if a blow job is sex or not before you parse Bill's answer. I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. I said ILLEGAL. Yes, it IS illegal. A president can not have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. Period. Do you think they can? If so, explain how. I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You sound pretty sure of it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that? As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject better discussed with your dad. You *are* wrong. Anyone? OK, your ex-wife. Anywhere? Town Square at noon. Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy) and indecent exposure. Hell, you made the rules. You made it too easy. Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone, anywhere you choose. You know that. You've now been taught why. ;-) Bye You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using that technicality to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I meant that the act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal for ANYONE. You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point. I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. I can't help that your statement was poorly defined. My statement your original statement stands as true. Prove that it was illegal for Clinton to have sex with Lewinski. Do it now. Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. Unethical, sleazy, immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack of a moral compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES. Illegal, no. It was the purgery that was illegal. But I never said otherwise. You know that. Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There were no ***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security. Only a child pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that vanish. He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral activities. Or is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can exist? -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote:
Come on - you are smarter than that. Yup. Bill Lied About Sex. It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 26, 7:13*am, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:24:53 -0500, Kippered wrote: Of which was he guilty? Wouldn't lying be a subset of perjury? He was guilty of lying. *Perjury is a crime, and in this country, to be guilty, one needs to be convicted. *Clinton was never convicted of perjury. * OJ was not convicted either... |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:58:45 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
How exactly wasn't he convicted of perjury if his license to practice law was revoked and he was fined for not telling the truth? Come on - you are smarter than that. Perjury is a crime, and as such, is defined in statute, not a dictionary. I'm not defending Clinton's moral character, just stating he was not convicted of perjury. Remember, we are talking lawyers he http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clin...esperjury.html |
What is it about Democrat leaders
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote: Come on - you are smarter than that. Yup. Bill Lied About Sex. It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it. Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered. As it was over sex, it didn't. Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"hk" wrote in message . .. Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote: Come on - you are smarter than that. Yup. Bill Lied About Sex. It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it. Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered. As it was over sex, it didn't. Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters. Forget the issue for a moment and consider the character of the person. How do you pick and choose dishonesty? My opinion is that Bill Clinton is one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever seen with his wife a close second. Eisboch Eisboch |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 26, 8:48*am, hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote: Come on - you are smarter than that. Yup. Bill Lied About Sex. It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it. Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered. As it was over sex, it didn't. Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters. Why do you always find a justification for bad behavior. Anyone paying attention knows the Clintons were into a lot more than just sex, it does not matter that witnesses committed Arkansas Suicide and they were never convicted. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "hk" wrote in message . .. Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote: Come on - you are smarter than that. Yup. Bill Lied About Sex. It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it. Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered. As it was over sex, it didn't. Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters. Forget the issue for a moment and consider the character of the person. How do you pick and choose dishonesty? My opinion is that Bill Clinton is one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever seen with his wife a close second. Eisboch I should add: Bush can't be intellectually dishonest for obvious reasons. Eisboch |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:55:37 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
Forget the issue for a moment and consider the character of the person. How do you pick and choose dishonesty? My opinion is that Bill Clinton is one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever seen with his wife a close second. I wouldn't dispute that about Bill. He's the consummate politician, and there is something fundamentally dishonest about that. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message . .. Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote: Come on - you are smarter than that. Yup. Bill Lied About Sex. It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it. Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered. As it was over sex, it didn't. Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters. Forget the issue for a moment and consider the character of the person. How do you pick and choose dishonesty? My opinion is that Bill Clinton is one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever seen with his wife a close second. Eisboch Eisboch Bush is far, far more dishonest, though I will give you this: Bush's dishonesty is not based on intellectuality. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
|
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:45:28 -0000, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:58:45 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: How exactly wasn't he convicted of perjury if his license to practice law was revoked and he was fined for not telling the truth? Come on - you are smarter than that. Perjury is a crime, and as such, is defined in statute, not a dictionary. I'm not defending Clinton's moral character, just stating he was not convicted of perjury. Remember, we are talking lawyers he http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clin...esperjury.html That's the difference between you and I. In the sense that he was "convicted" - if you are censored by a judge, held in contempt of court and have your license to practice suspended because of an attempt to lie, under judicial instruction not to, then you are as good as "convicted" under the broadly acceptable definition of a term. The ability to redefine common English to suit purposes other than those provided by common sense is not relevant. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:48:42 -0500, hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote: Come on - you are smarter than that. Yup. Bill Lied About Sex. It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it. Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered. As it was over sex, it didn't. It's not the issue - the issue is that he lied. Period. End of Dicsussion. Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters. "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry, October 9, 1998. "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos. "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 So, Harry, be honest. Did all those people also lie? |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 26, 9:01*am, JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:16:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:30:21 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:49:47 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:16:29 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: News for harry... Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with a fat chick. Oh, and your "filter" is acting up again. Sure he was. Oh, technically, it was related to "lying under oath" about sex. Y-A-W-N. The whole business was nothing more than a GOP witch hunt to "get" Clinton, and wasn't worth even an asterisk. It was uncovering the tip of an iceberg, and that's just all they could get him for. *He and Monica could have gone at it until they were both blind, and if he had not committed perjury, there wouold have been no impeachment. *Period. Had the Repubs not been out to "get" Bill on "something," there would have been no impeachment, period. After trying for years, all the Repubs could do was nail him because he lied about sex. I can hardly wait for the subpoenas and grand juries next year. They won't be about sex or lying about sex, either. Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded because of Liberal lies. You forgot this: That wouold be great. *Their facilitators are Albright, Clinton, Dean, Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were beating the war drum for Iraq even before Bush was elected. Remember this video? Bush and Cheney lied, and thousands died, and for nothing. Bush was pushed into it by Albright, Clinton, Dean, Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were beating the war drum for Iraq. *And now they lie and say it was Bush. Shame on them. ================ Bush's statements, in chronological order, we snip So? *As I said, the libs were beating the war drum for Iraq and Sadam back in 1998, long before Bush even got into office. *Watch this instructive video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE You'll learn something.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Pfffffttt.... They won't care, even if you show them. These are after all far left secular progressives, they are self indulgent, mostly spoiled baby boomers with little intellectual integerity. If the the truth does not fit, and in this case the truth is clear, they will just change it as they have, on an institutional level from the top down in the party. And selfish, non-thinking democrats will fall into line anyway... It's just easier for them that way I guess. Truth is hard. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
|
What is it about Democrat leaders
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:48:42 -0500, hk wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote: Come on - you are smarter than that. Yup. Bill Lied About Sex. It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it. Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered. As it was over sex, it didn't. It's not the issue - the issue is that he lied. Period. End of Dicsussion. Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters. "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, \\ I've seen all that crap a zillion times. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"Kippered" wrote in message
... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message m... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5iknis@4ax. com... On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@comc ast.com... wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:24:18 -0500, Kippered wrote: Harry, it's not the sex. I know this is, for you, especially hard to understand. The guy *perjured* himself. That means lying. Believe it or not, most folks consider that wrong. Of course, you and your buddy find nothing wrong with that because it gains you notoriety, and some probably think it's right cool. But it isn't. Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing. Clinton was guilty of one, but we was not guilty of the other. Don't you remember Bill pointing his finger at us and saying "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski!" Let's ask the wives if a blow job is sex or not before you parse Bill's answer. I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. I said ILLEGAL. Yes, it IS illegal. A president can not have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. Period. Do you think they can? If so, explain how. I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You sound pretty sure of it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that? As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject better discussed with your dad. You *are* wrong. Anyone? OK, your ex-wife. Anywhere? Town Square at noon. Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy) and indecent exposure. Hell, you made the rules. You made it too easy. Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone, anywhere you choose. You know that. You've now been taught why. ;-) Bye You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using that technicality to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I meant that the act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal for ANYONE. You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point. I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. I can't help that your statement was poorly defined. My statement your original statement stands as true. Prove that it was illegal for Clinton to have sex with Lewinski. Do it now. Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. Unethical, sleazy, immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack of a moral compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES. Illegal, no. It was the purgery that was illegal. But I never said otherwise. You know that. Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There were no ***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security. Only a child pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that vanish. He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral activities. Or is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can exist? You never saw me claim that his behavior was NOT unethical. If you disagree, please find the text, written by me, which suggests that I approve of what he did. Copy & past a sample of that text into your next response. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote: Come on - you are smarter than that. Yup. Bill Lied About Sex. It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it. "It" is also about WHY he was asked. You know why. The fake saints needed a bit of theatre, for political reasons. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"hk" wrote in message . .. I've seen all that crap a zillion times. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. Pretty much sums it up. Eisboch |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:48:42 -0500, hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote: Come on - you are smarter than that. Yup. Bill Lied About Sex. It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it. Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered. As it was over sex, it didn't. Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters. I find it hard to believe that anyone is trying to convince you that lying is wrong! Unreal! -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:34:37 -0500, hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:48:42 -0500, hk wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote: Come on - you are smarter than that. Yup. Bill Lied About Sex. It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it. Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered. As it was over sex, it didn't. It's not the issue - the issue is that he lied. Period. End of Dicsussion. Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters. "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, \\ I've seen all that crap a zillion times. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. Now is where Tom should come back and ask you to answer his question. -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:01:23 -0500, JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:16:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:30:21 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:49:47 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:16:29 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: News for harry... Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with a fat chick. Oh, and your "filter" is acting up again. Sure he was. Oh, technically, it was related to "lying under oath" about sex. Y-A-W-N. The whole business was nothing more than a GOP witch hunt to "get" Clinton, and wasn't worth even an asterisk. It was uncovering the tip of an iceberg, and that's just all they could get him for. He and Monica could have gone at it until they were both blind, and if he had not committed perjury, there wouold have been no impeachment. Period. Had the Repubs not been out to "get" Bill on "something," there would have been no impeachment, period. After trying for years, all the Repubs could do was nail him because he lied about sex. I can hardly wait for the subpoenas and grand juries next year. They won't be about sex or lying about sex, either. Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded because of Liberal lies. You forgot this: That wouold be great. Their facilitators are Albright, Clinton, Dean, Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were beating the war drum for Iraq even before Bush was elected. Remember this video? Bush and Cheney lied, and thousands died, and for nothing. Bush was pushed into it by Albright, Clinton, Dean, Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were beating the war drum for Iraq. And now they lie and say it was Bush. Shame on them. ================ Bush's statements, in chronological order, we snip So? As I said, the libs were beating the war drum for Iraq and Sadam back in 1998, long before Bush even got into office. Watch this instructive video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE You'll learn something. The liberals here should be using that video to calibrate their new TV sets. -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"JG2U" wrote in message
... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:16:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:30:21 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:49:47 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:16:29 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: News for harry... Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with a fat chick. Oh, and your "filter" is acting up again. Sure he was. Oh, technically, it was related to "lying under oath" about sex. Y-A-W-N. The whole business was nothing more than a GOP witch hunt to "get" Clinton, and wasn't worth even an asterisk. It was uncovering the tip of an iceberg, and that's just all they could get him for. He and Monica could have gone at it until they were both blind, and if he had not committed perjury, there wouold have been no impeachment. Period. Had the Repubs not been out to "get" Bill on "something," there would have been no impeachment, period. After trying for years, all the Repubs could do was nail him because he lied about sex. I can hardly wait for the subpoenas and grand juries next year. They won't be about sex or lying about sex, either. Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded because of Liberal lies. You forgot this: That wouold be great. Their facilitators are Albright, Clinton, Dean, Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were beating the war drum for Iraq even before Bush was elected. Remember this video? Bush and Cheney lied, and thousands died, and for nothing. Bush was pushed into it by Albright, Clinton, Dean, Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were beating the war drum for Iraq. And now they lie and say it was Bush. Shame on them. ================ Bush's statements, in chronological order, we snip So? As I said, the libs were beating the war drum for Iraq and Sadam back in 1998, long before Bush even got into office. Watch this instructive video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE You'll learn something. I've seen that. One day, Saddam had a nuclear facility. The next day, he didn't. I'm sure you remember how and when this truth came to be. Then, he had one again, and it was important to deal with it. And then, like before, it became unimportant. If Saddam had a future, his nuclear facility might've become important again. Same with Iran, although we and other sellers of technology seem to have learned our lesson after we helped Pakistan build nuclear weapons and gave them aircraft with which to deliver them. So, at least with regard to nuclear weapons, let's not have any double standards. If it upsets you that he wanted to own that kind of WMD, you have to view his efforts in the context of history. And that, unfortunately, means you need to get to the library. You will now be tempted to ask me if I think it was good that Saddam was striving to own nuclear weapons. Please don't. It's a dumb question. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message om... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5iknis@4ax .com... On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@com cast.com... wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:24:18 -0500, Kippered wrote: Harry, it's not the sex. I know this is, for you, especially hard to understand. The guy *perjured* himself. That means lying. Believe it or not, most folks consider that wrong. Of course, you and your buddy find nothing wrong with that because it gains you notoriety, and some probably think it's right cool. But it isn't. Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing. Clinton was guilty of one, but we was not guilty of the other. Don't you remember Bill pointing his finger at us and saying "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski!" Let's ask the wives if a blow job is sex or not before you parse Bill's answer. I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. I said ILLEGAL. Yes, it IS illegal. A president can not have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. Period. Do you think they can? If so, explain how. I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You sound pretty sure of it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that? As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject better discussed with your dad. You *are* wrong. Anyone? OK, your ex-wife. Anywhere? Town Square at noon. Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy) and indecent exposure. Hell, you made the rules. You made it too easy. Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone, anywhere you choose. You know that. You've now been taught why. ;-) Bye You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using that technicality to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I meant that the act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal for ANYONE. You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point. I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. I can't help that your statement was poorly defined. My statement your original statement stands as true. Prove that it was illegal for Clinton to have sex with Lewinski. Do it now. Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. Unethical, sleazy, immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack of a moral compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES. Illegal, no. It was the purgery that was illegal. But I never said otherwise. You know that. Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There were no ***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security. Only a child pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that vanish. He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral activities. Or is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can exist? You never saw me claim that his behavior was NOT unethical. If you disagree, please find the text, written by me, which suggests that I approve of what he did. Copy & past a sample of that text into your next response. "Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question only for political gain." No. They asked him the question because of his unethical, sleazy, and immoral behavior. Your implication that they had no reason to question his behavior is horse****. -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com