|
|
Post by tuff on May 6, 2011 16:52:05 GMT -8
Hmm. I seem to remember that Bill Clinton ordered strikes against bin Laden in 1998. However, conservatives were so upset about that. After all it, was distracting from their impeachment of Clinton. That was way more important than national security.  Have you forgotten that Richard Clark tried to get the attention of the Bush administration about the danger of bin Laden but was ignored by them? But then, this is AztecWilliam posting. Shoot, I would not be suprised if he had not plucked out his left eye. Being left it offended him.  That impeachment of a man for getting a blow job was the most ridiculous thing ever seen in politics. The people who were behind that nonsense had to be the worst lowlifes ever in American politics. The entire action was beneath contemp. Then when Clinton took military action the so called conservatives attacked him for trying to get Bin Ladin and his criminal gang and told the American people it was the tail wagging the dog. The Republican Party has become the most morally and ethically corrupt political party in world history. Shame! Only Shame attends it. Was his impeachment for that or for lying under oath? Was't he disbarred for it? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 6, 2011 16:56:29 GMT -8
That impeachment of a man for getting a blow job was the most ridiculous thing ever seen in politics. The people who were behind that nonsense had to be the worst lowlifes ever in American politics. The entire action was beneath contemp. Then when Clinton took military action the so called conservatives attacked him for trying to get Bin Ladin and his criminal gang and told the American people it was the tail wagging the dog. The Republican Party has become the most morally and ethically corrupt political party in world history. Shame! Only Shame attends it. Was his impeachment for that or for lying under oath? Was't he disbarred for it? Do you understand the difference between lying in a civil suit and lying in a criminal investigation? Didn't think so. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 6, 2011 18:34:27 GMT -8
Was his impeachment for that or for lying under oath? Was't he disbarred for it? Do you understand the difference between lying in a civil suit and lying in a criminal investigation? Didn't think so. =Bob Perjury is perjury, it doesn't matter the court. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on May 6, 2011 20:26:58 GMT -8
Was his impeachment for that or for lying under oath? Was't he disbarred for it? Do you understand the difference between lying in a civil suit and lying in a criminal investigation? Didn't think so. =Bob If there is anybody who says that the impeachment was not a deliberate attempt to embarrass a man for political reasons I'll call him a liar to his face. They can try to excuse their behavior by saying that Bill lied to cover it up, but that sheet don't fly with me or the real men I have known in my life. Wimps and geeks are not men. If they accidentally got a piece from a blind girl or a deformed girl,or a mongoloid idiot, it would be understood that they would probably brag to the world about their conquest. That is not manly behavior, and is actually quite embarrassing for the geeks, but they can not help themselves. In a world of men, we do not admit that we had a blowjob from a pretty young Jewish Princess or a Swedish Princess, or the sexy Hispanic maid for that matter. Our sexual activities have always been something that real men were expected to deny for the sake of the woman. It is a cultural thing but well understood in the United States and the rest of the world. Only in France can it be a matter of public discourse and even then it is the exception rather than the rule. I would never admit in public to having banged all the pretty young aggressive women I have been intimate with in my days of wild abandon. At the time it would have been nobody's business but ours. If somebody asked me, I would probably have told him to try procreating with himself, or I would have decked him if I felt he needed it. I most certainly would have never mentioned any intimacy of mine with any girl and neither should have Bill. We know the cultural rules. The Republicans all seem to have forgotten to their tremendous shame. Even God does not like those kinds of scumbags. He makes that very clear in the Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 6, 2011 21:00:20 GMT -8
All credit? All? How about giving credit to the folks that figured it out, did all the hard planning and especially those that put their lives on the line? Certainly, the President gets the credit for making the decision but "all the credit?" No way. Well stated, Stu. There are any number of unsung people who busted their asses to make it happen. CIA analysts live in a world of no gratitude while they go about the business of protecting this country. =Bob Thanks, good summary. Appreciate it -bob. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 7, 2011 6:12:37 GMT -8
Brain dead is not exactly how I would describe President Bush, but he was not exactly a Reagan. It just galls you lefties to know that Bush was head and shoulders smarter and accomplished more than Obama, Clinton or anything that Kerry or Algore could have done. Face it, you can't get good men to run for the Republican nomination and there are no good men on the Democrat side. Yawn. "head and shoulders"? Don't think so. How does feel Pooh - trying to defend an idiot simply because he ran on your party standard? I mean really, those of us on the left rejected LBJ when it became clear that despite all the advances he made in civil rights he was unwilling to dis-engage in Vietnam. I'm sorry, but you really don't have much of a clue. You should, given you level of intelligence, but you always allow your right-wing ideology to get in the way of rational thought. In short, you really don't understand the definition of "moderate" and that lack of understanding is what's leading to the death of your party. =Bob OK, Mr. Poopypants, tell me what it means to be a Moderate. (That girl is on to something) |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 7, 2011 14:22:10 GMT -8
Was his impeachment for that or for lying under oath? Was't he disbarred for it? Do you understand the difference between lying in a civil suit and lying in a criminal investigation? Didn't think so. =Bob Do YOU? In a 1994 case, Ku Klux Klan grand dragon David Wayne Holland was prosecuted for perjury for trying to hide his assets in a private civil rights lawsuit to prevent the plaintiffs from collecting a $450,000 judgment against him. A federal appeals court ruled that the judge who sentenced him erred by reducing Holland's sentence on the basis that his perjury was in a civil proceeding, not a criminal matter. "We categorically reject any suggestion, implicit or otherwise, that perjury is somehow less serious when made in a civil proceeding," federal appeals court Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote. "Perjury, regardless of the setting, is a serious offense that results in incalculable harm to the functioning and integrity of the legal system as well as to private individuals." tinyurl.com/3lugb9wDidn't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 7, 2011 14:34:14 GMT -8
Do you understand the difference between lying in a civil suit and lying in a criminal investigation? Didn't think so. =Bob If there is anybody who says that the impeachment was not a deliberate attempt to embarrass a man for political reasons I'll call him a liar to his face. They can try to excuse their behavior by saying that Bill lied to cover it up, but that sheet don't fly with me or the real men I have known in my life. Wimps and geeks are not men. If they accidentally got a piece from a blind girl or a deformed girl,or a mongoloid idiot, it would be understood that they would probably brag to the world about their conquest. That is not manly behavior, and is actually quite embarrassing for the geeks, but they can not help themselves. In a world of men, we do not admit that we had a blowjob from a pretty young Jewish Princess or a Swedish Princess, or the sexy Hispanic maid for that matter. Our sexual activities have always been something that real men were expected to deny for the sake of the woman. It is a cultural thing but well understood in the United States and the rest of the world. Only in France can it be a matter of public discourse and even then it is the exception rather than the rule. I would never admit in public to having banged all the pretty young aggressive women I have been intimate with in my days of wild abandon. At the time it would have been nobody's business but ours. If somebody asked me, I would probably have told him to try procreating with himself, or I would have decked him if I felt he needed it. I most certainly would have never mentioned any intimacy of mine with any girl and neither should have Bill. We know the cultural rules. The Republicans all seem to have forgotten to their tremendous shame. Even God does not like those kinds of scumbags. He makes that very clear in the Bible. Joe, nobody on here cares about your braggadocio, except perhaps the greenest of newbies. You could do a knothole in your back fence, and .....NOBODY.CARES. ... unless it would be the $#!+-eating dog living on the other side looking for a treat. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 7, 2011 17:26:59 GMT -8
Do you understand the difference between lying in a civil suit and lying in a criminal investigation? Didn't think so. =Bob Do YOU? In a 1994 case, Ku Klux Klan grand dragon David Wayne Holland was prosecuted for perjury for trying to hide his assets in a private civil rights lawsuit to prevent the plaintiffs from collecting a $450,000 judgment against him. A federal appeals court ruled that the judge who sentenced him erred by reducing Holland's sentence on the basis that his perjury was in a civil proceeding, not a criminal matter. "We categorically reject any suggestion, implicit or otherwise, that perjury is somehow less serious when made in a civil proceeding," federal appeals court Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote. "Perjury, regardless of the setting, is a serious offense that results in incalculable harm to the functioning and integrity of the legal system as well as to private individuals." tinyurl.com/3lugb9wDidn't think so. You missed my point. In civil proceedings defendants are allowed much more leeway when it comes to changing their story. Clinton was led into a perjury trap. It's prosecutable as a felony but clearly, from the above, it's damn difficult to get a conviction. And in the case you cite (wonder how long you searched before you found it), the perjury was more egregious. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 8, 2011 7:17:38 GMT -8
We sure can get off track. What does trying to show degree of seriousness with a black and white question have to do with getting Bin Laden?
|
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on May 8, 2011 8:52:28 GMT -8
Obama and Biden...Osama bin Laden...NOW do we get to have all troops and employees sucking our tax dollars brought back from Iraq, Iran, Italy, Itchstanisbad, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Unclestan, Ohgip, Egypt, Japan, Stupan, and everywhere???
I'll give the U. S. government one week to get all troops back to Fort Ord, or else....no June 15th estimated 1040-ES payment. There. I said it.
HAM
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 8, 2011 13:45:39 GMT -8
Do YOU? In a 1994 case, Ku Klux Klan grand dragon David Wayne Holland was prosecuted for perjury for trying to hide his assets in a private civil rights lawsuit to prevent the plaintiffs from collecting a $450,000 judgment against him. A federal appeals court ruled that the judge who sentenced him erred by reducing Holland's sentence on the basis that his perjury was in a civil proceeding, not a criminal matter. "We categorically reject any suggestion, implicit or otherwise, that perjury is somehow less serious when made in a civil proceeding," federal appeals court Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote. "Perjury, regardless of the setting, is a serious offense that results in incalculable harm to the functioning and integrity of the legal system as well as to private individuals." tinyurl.com/3lugb9wDidn't think so. You missed my point. In civil proceedings defendants are allowed much more leeway when it comes to changing their story. Clinton was led into a perjury trap. It's prosecutable as a felony but clearly, from the above, it's damn difficult to get a conviction. And in the case you cite (wonder how long you searched before you found it), the perjury was more egregious. =Bob Well, if I missed your point, I'm missing it even more now. Probably you are missing mine. You cite an article that points out that perjury convictions are difficult to obtain...in criminal as well as civil cases. It recognizes a certain leeway in civil cases for various reasons. That's true. However, there is no doubt that Clinton committed perjury, that's a slam dunk. He paid a hefty fine for it, too. He was trying to slither out of a sexual harrassment lawsuit, and sexual harrassment is a serious matter. Any good liberal knows that, and any good liberal will view it with well-deserved odium (except when politics gets in the way...situational ethics). What is particulary egregious in the Clinton matter, IMO even more egregious than the KKK case, is that as president he was the highest ranking law enforcement officer in our country. He swore an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution and the laws... Instead, he did as Judge Tjoflat defined. He committed a "serious offense that results in incalculable harm to the functioning and integrity of the legal system..." Oh, I didn't have to search long at all for the reference. It was the first hit. It was an article in the Washington Post. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2011 16:37:49 GMT -8
Obama made the call to go forward and get the guy, all credit to Obama. Au contrer, props to President Simpleton. After all, HE was the one who took out Saddam Hussein and but for that, we would never have gotten bin Laden.   * Actually, Dubya hired a far right AG who was expert in justifying the use of almost any sort of torture of any sort of prisoner and it was waterboarding which allowed the first domino to fall in the pursuit of that mass murdering POS. And since murdering Fundamentalist Muslims don't and have never given a rat's ass about the Geneva Convention, in our war against them, neither should we concern ourselves about an agreement they ignore. Therefore, count me as one Democrat who isn't the least bit bothered by the fact Obama hasn't closed down Gitmo. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2011 16:42:40 GMT -8
Perjury is perjury, it doesn't matter the court. That is particularly so when the perjurer is the supposed Leader of the Free World. What Clinton SHOULD have said: "I had sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I am human and therefore imperfect, it was a mistake and I have apologized to my wife and have nothing more to say about it." |
|
Have you forgotten that Richard Clark tried to get the attention of the Bush administration about the danger of bin Laden but was ignored by them? 
