|
What is it about Democrat leaders
"JG2U" wrote in message
... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:20:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 26, 9:01 am, JG2U wrote: 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. You know, I'm not totally in line with all of the beliefs of either party. There are some basic tenants of the conservatives and of the liberals that I just don't believe in. What difference does it make to you who either group rents to? |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of Clinton's behavior. The difference is Gingrich (who, BTW, I have little respect for) didn't deny his affair under oath. It's the dishonesty issue, not the event. Eisboch |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of Clinton's behavior. The difference is Gingrich (who, BTW, I have little respect for) didn't deny his affair under oath. It's the dishonesty issue, not the event. Eisboch Then, you're OK with Reagan telling congress that Pakistan was not developing nuclear weapons, while in fact he helped them get the materials they needed, by hobbling the efforts of two agencies which were trying to stop the transfer of those materials. My point is, I just want to be sure you're being consistent. Sleaze is sleaze. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
hk wrote:
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. You keep believing that it is all about sex. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
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. When a rapist is on trial he is allowed to to lie about his actions, after all it is just about sex. |
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. Just answer the question - it's simple. Did all those people lie about the WMDs? If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below, then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs? Yes or no. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"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. I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say the right thing. It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and their main henchman in the process was George Tenant. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 26, 12:01*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "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. I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say the right thing. It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and their main henchman in the process was George Tenant. Ding, ding, ding.. and we have a winner... |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "hk" wrote in message m... I've seen all that crap a zillion times. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. Pretty much sums it up. I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say the right thing. It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and their main henchman in the process was George Tenant. I suppose you think Reagan was set up by Carter, in terms of inheriting the Pakistan nightmare. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 25, 7:06*pm, JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:59:32 -0500, hk wrote: JG2U wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:12:35 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:00:07 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message .. . "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message .. . "Red Flounder" wrote in message news:c5dhp3ligp3u2si905etgab7v4cu5f1870@4 ax.com... and marital infidelity? http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...4/NEWS05/80124... Damn Democrats can't keep it in their pants apparently. Compared to last year's Republican gay sex adventures, it's nothing. Really. It doesn't? *Did the *"last year's Republican gay sex adventures" cost the taxpayers $9 million? Tell me how much it cost taxpayers to manage these assholes: http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...publicanHypocr... Aany of those felonies? *Did any cost $9 million? *How much did Congressman Jefferson cost us? The legal matters on that page cost taxpayers a total of $42 million dollars. Thanks for asking. Now you can deal with the actual facts that are important, rather than the ones which are not. So? *The total cost of the clinton impeachment for the American public was about 40 Million, for *one* liberal scumbag. Now you know. Thank you for helping me make my point. Now, explain to Bill that the severity of a crime has nothing to do with the cost of prosecuting the crime. The fact that it was the POTUS, and was impeachment, means the crime was severe, so it cost a lot. *Your point failed. You'd think that after seven years of incredible disasters perpetrated on us by the Bush Administration, the jack-offs of the world would have moved on from Bill Clinton's sex life. But, no. I suppose that's what makes a Jack Goff a jack-off. News for harry... Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with a fat chick. Oh, and your "filter" is acting up again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You mean the Bozo's Bin? |
What is it about Democrat leaders
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "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. I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say the right thing. It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and their main henchman in the process was George Tenant. If you believe that, then you must believe Bush is even dumber than I think he is. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:47:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
The difference is Gingrich (who, BTW, I have little respect for) didn't deny his affair under oath. It's the dishonesty issue, not the event. Eisboch And if he denied it, not under oath? It would still be a dishonesty issue. Personally, I find the dishonesty troubling, but then again, I find the hypocrisy more troubling, but that's just me. I wouldn't deny lying comes easy to Clinton, but, married people lying about an affair, is, quite possibly, the most common lie out there. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
|
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:59:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: 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. Just answer the question - it's simple. Did all those people lie about the WMDs? If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below, then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs? Yes or no. I'm still waiting - yoo hoo - anybody home? Hello? |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:59:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: 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. Just answer the question - it's simple. Did all those people lie about the WMDs? If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below, then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs? Yes or no. I'm still waiting - yoo hoo - anybody home? Hello? They all said what they believed at the time. The issue is the word TIME. When did he have these things, and how close was he to actually having them ready to use? "Moments from turning the last screw", as the CIA put it when debating where Pakistan was in its nuke program. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message .. . 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 om... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60o@4ax .com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5iknis@4 ax.com... On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@c omcast.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****. You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of Clinton's behavior. How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are way too full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****. -- John H |
What is it about Democrat leaders
|
What is it about Democrat leaders
"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message m... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg4@4ax. com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60o@4a x.com... 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@ comcast.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****. You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of Clinton's behavior. How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are way too full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****. -- John H Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of course not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:54:37 -0500, BAR wrote:
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. When a rapist is on trial he is allowed to to lie about his actions, after all it is just about sex. You are discussing the lying as though it were wrong, but you're doing so with one who has no compunctions about same. -- John H |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message om... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg4@4ax .com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60o@4 ax.com... 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 @comcast.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****. You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of Clinton's behavior. How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are way too full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****. -- John H Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of course not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable. Gingrich's guilt or lack thereof has no bearing on your horse**** implication. -- John H |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message m... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message news:hvcmp3tqorgj6ulot8732op3hapktbe70a@4ax. com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg4@4a x.com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60o@ 4ax.com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5ikni ... On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2 ... 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****. You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of Clinton's behavior. How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are way too full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****. -- John H Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of course not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable. Gingrich's guilt or lack thereof has no bearing on your horse**** implication. -- John H My implication is perfect. Gingrich went after Clinton for only one reason: To make political hay because he needed to at the time. Nobody gave a damn about Clinton's sex life. Clinton simply provided them with a tool to use against him. That was his biggest mistake. |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:59:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: 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. Just answer the question - it's simple. Did all those people lie about the WMDs? If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below, then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs? Yes or no. I'm still waiting - yoo hoo - anybody home? Hello? They all said what they believed at the time. The issue is the word TIME. When did he have these things, and how close was he to actually having them ready to use? "Moments from turning the last screw", as the CIA put it when debating where Pakistan was in its nuke program. The facts are pretty well established, both in text and video. For you're memory summary: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE Eisboch |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"JG2U" wrote in message
... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message m... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message news:hvcmp3tqorgj6ulot8732op3hapktbe70a@4ax. com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg4@4a x.com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60o@ 4ax.com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5ikni ... On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2 ... 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****. You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of Clinton's behavior. How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are way too full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****. -- John H Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of course not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable. There lies the base problem with you, Doug. You can't conceive of someone feeling remorse during the commission of an immoral, lying, cheating act. You don't either. The feeling is alien to you. Others have a better moral compass to guide them. Keep striving; you can do better. ;-) Try and come to grips with the perfect truth: Gingrich the fake saint was a hypocrite. He hounded Clinton while he was doing the exact same thing as Clinton. He did not go after Clinton because he had a problem with his behavior. He went after Clinton for political gain, and no other reason. +++++++++ WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former House speaker and potential presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has confessed, telling conservative Christian leader James Dobson that he was cheating on his wife at around the same time the House was impeaching President Bill Clinton over his White House affair with Monica Lewinsky. But Gingrich said that didn't make him a hypocrite, because Clinton was impeached not for the affair, but for lying about it. +++++++++ BULL****! |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 26, 6:05*pm, JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message om... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg4@4ax .com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60o@4 ax.com... 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 @comcast.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****. You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of Clinton's behavior. How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are way too full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****. -- John H Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of course not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable. There lies the base problem with you, Doug. *You can't conceive of someone feeling remorse during the commission of an immoral, lying, cheating act. *You don't either. *The feeling is alien to you. Others have a better moral compass to guide them. *Keep striving; you can do better. *;-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He needs Jesus;) |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:59:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: 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. Just answer the question - it's simple. Did all those people lie about the WMDs? If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below, then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs? Yes or no. I'm still waiting - yoo hoo - anybody home? Hello? They all said what they believed at the time. The issue is the word TIME. When did he have these things, and how close was he to actually having them ready to use? "Moments from turning the last screw", as the CIA put it when debating where Pakistan was in its nuke program. The facts are pretty well established, both in text and video. For you're memory summary: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE Eisboch That video shows statements by politicians. I think I see the problem here. I'm reading something you're not. Read this, and then let me know what you think about statements made by politicians: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...46199575&itm=1 I'll have it finished by Monday. By then, you should be able to find out if your public library has the book. Without it, I honestly don't think you can discuss the subject any further, especially if your idea of "facts" is typified by that youtube video. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
wrote in message
... On Jan 26, 6:05 pm, JG2U wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message om... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg4@4ax .com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60o@4 ax.com... 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 @comcast.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****. You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of Clinton's behavior. How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are way too full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****. -- John H Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of course not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable. There lies the base problem with you, Doug. You can't conceive of someone feeling remorse during the commission of an immoral, lying, cheating act. You don't either. The feeling is alien to you. Others have a better moral compass to guide them. Keep striving; you can do better. ;-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He needs Jesus;) ===================== Gingrich played the god card while simultaneously confessing his adulterous behavior to the press. That's always a warning sign when a politician plays the god card. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "hk" wrote in message om... I've seen all that crap a zillion times. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. Pretty much sums it up. I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say the right thing. It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and their main henchman in the process was George Tenant. I suppose you think Reagan was set up by Carter, in terms of inheriting the Pakistan nightmare. There you go again, dissing old Ronny Wrinkles, who has nothing to do with this topic and, BTW, is a favorite of Barack Obama. Eisboch |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "hk" wrote in message news:6MOdncJnI4ue2AbanZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast. com... I've seen all that crap a zillion times. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. Pretty much sums it up. I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say the right thing. It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and their main henchman in the process was George Tenant. I suppose you think Reagan was set up by Carter, in terms of inheriting the Pakistan nightmare. There you go again, dissing old Ronny Wrinkles, who has nothing to do with this topic and, BTW, is a favorite of Barack Obama. Eisboch Actually, I wasn't dissing Reagan at all. The implied point was that all presidents inherit nightmares from their predecessors. You know that, and so does Tom. Any other conclusion suggests a dependency on children's books for knowledge of recent history. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"hk" wrote in message . .. Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "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. I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say the right thing. It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and their main henchman in the process was George Tenant. If you believe that, then you must believe Bush is even dumber than I think he is. Hmmmm.... that must mean that someone is smarter than they thought they were .... or something like that. Eisboch |
What is it about Democrat leaders
wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:47:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote: The difference is Gingrich (who, BTW, I have little respect for) didn't deny his affair under oath. It's the dishonesty issue, not the event. Eisboch And if he denied it, not under oath? It would still be a dishonesty issue. Personally, I find the dishonesty troubling, but then again, I find the hypocrisy more troubling, but that's just me. I wouldn't deny lying comes easy to Clinton, but, married people lying about an affair, is, quite possibly, the most common lie out there. Lying = dishonest Lying under oath to court system = dishonest and illegal. Eisboch |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:59:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: 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. Just answer the question - it's simple. Did all those people lie about the WMDs? If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below, then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs? Yes or no. I'm still waiting - yoo hoo - anybody home? Hello? Most of those you wonder about were supplied intel by the Bush Admin. But you know what? It doesn't matter what they did. Bush is the one who lied to get his war started. -- George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever! |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of course not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable. You just crossed the line of any future consideration to credibility in your posts. You have absolutely no knowledge of your accusation. Eisboch |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Actually, I wasn't dissing Reagan at all. The implied point was that all presidents inherit nightmares from their predecessors. Just about the most intelligent post you've made in a year. Eisboch |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:19:31 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
There you go again, dissing old Ronny Wrinkles, who has nothing to do with this topic and, BTW, is a favorite of Barack Obama. Eisboch Well, in a way, Reagan was at the start. In 1982, Reagan removed Iraq from the list of terrorist sponsoring countries, and started arming both Iraq and Iran during the Iraq/Iran War. Many consider the debt Iraq accrued during that war, the reason for the invasion of Kuwait. When you play geopolitical chess, the end game is sometimes problematic. |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:28:51 -0500, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:59:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: 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. Just answer the question - it's simple. Did all those people lie about the WMDs? If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below, then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs? Yes or no. I'm still waiting - yoo hoo - anybody home? Hello? Most of those you wonder about were supplied intel by the Bush Admin. But you know what? It doesn't matter what they did. Bush is the one who lied to get his war started. Unfortunate. It would appear that you can't give a honest answer to an honest question. Thought better of you actually. Oh well... |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:28:51 -0500, HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:59:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: 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. Just answer the question - it's simple. Did all those people lie about the WMDs? If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below, then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs? Yes or no. I'm still waiting - yoo hoo - anybody home? Hello? Most of those you wonder about were supplied intel by the Bush Admin. But you know what? It doesn't matter what they did. Bush is the one who lied to get his war started. Unfortunate. It would appear that you can't give a honest answer to an honest question. Thought better of you actually. Oh well... It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush Admin. -- George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever! |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:03:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message om... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message news:hvcmp3tqorgj6ulot8732op3hapktbe70a@4ax .com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg4@4 ax.com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60o @4ax.com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5ikn ... On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ ... 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****. You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of Clinton's behavior. How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are way too full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****. -- John H Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of course not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable. Gingrich's guilt or lack thereof has no bearing on your horse**** implication. -- John H My implication is perfect. Gingrich went after Clinton for only one reason: To make political hay because he needed to at the time. Nobody gave a damn about Clinton's sex life. Clinton simply provided them with a tool to use against him. That was his biggest mistake. Other than the fact that his sex life was sleazy, unethical, and immoral, no one gave a **** about it. But, he perjured himself. That's what gave 'them' the tool to use. -- John H |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:22:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message m... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "hk" wrote in message news:6MOdncJnI4ue2AbanZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast .com... I've seen all that crap a zillion times. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. Pretty much sums it up. I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say the right thing. It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and their main henchman in the process was George Tenant. I suppose you think Reagan was set up by Carter, in terms of inheriting the Pakistan nightmare. There you go again, dissing old Ronny Wrinkles, who has nothing to do with this topic and, BTW, is a favorite of Barack Obama. Eisboch Actually, I wasn't dissing Reagan at all. The implied point was that all presidents inherit nightmares from their predecessors. You know that, and so does Tom. Any other conclusion suggests a dependency on children's books for knowledge of recent history. You've become a joke, and you just don't get it. -- John H |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 26, 1:42*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:dppmp3pdv23mnd9vi1mb8icepan7qciei7@4ax .com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "hk" wrote in message m... I've seen all that crap a zillion times. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. Pretty much sums it up. I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say the right thing. It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and their main henchman in the process was George Tenant. I suppose you think Reagan was set up by Carter, in terms of inheriting the Pakistan nightmare.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, with my tin hat firmly pulled down I have always thought just the opposite. Regan set up Carter with some kind of back room deal or threat to Iran... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com