The President Is Not Making Any Friends With His 3,000 Square Mile TFRs

"Jim Taylor" wrote in message
...
He's got
over 2,000 square miles of airspace restricted there. Believe me, no
one wants to hear his lies in Los Angeles.

Well to be sure, we are talking about THIS President I believe, so we
have a flawed premise fallacy there. If we were afraid of lies we
should be talking about the LAST President.

Huh? Getting reelected made him a different person?

For sure, "the LAST President" -- that is, the one in office from 2000 to
2004 -- told plenty of lies. And unlike the previous one, his lies got tens
of thousands of people killed.

Pete

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:03:04 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

And unlike the previous one, his lies got tens of thousands of people killed.

According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie. At any rate, what a
president does in his private life, as long as it's not criminal and
has no affect on his sworn duties, is no ones business but his.

When you consider the fact, that baby Bush is enlisting the assistance
of the only president to be impeached to help him with the Katrina
disaster, it reveals the triviality of the offence the GOP pined on
Clinton. I seriously doubt Nixon would have been similarly welcome
given his criminal activities.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie. [...]

I fully agree with your comments. But even if you buy into the whole "Great
Cigar Scandal" crap, those events don't come close to what has been going on
with the current administration. I figure, why allow anyone to suck the
conversation back to whether Clinton did what he was accused of, when the
point is just as easily made even if one assumes he did?

Allowing the argument to shift back to the Clinton era just permits people
to distract from current events.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Allowing the argument to shift back to the Clinton era just permits people
to distract from current events.

Pete


I need the distraction - thinking back to Bill is so vastly superior to
recognizing our current "leader" that I have to do it occasionally just to
maintain sanity.

Michael

Originally Posted by Michael 182

...thinking back to Bill is so vastly superior to recognizing our current "leader" that I have to do it occasionally just to maintain sanity.

Gawd, I think I'm going to puke!

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:24:34 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

I fully agree with your comments. But even if you buy into the whole "Great
Cigar Scandal" crap, those events don't come close to what has been going on
with the current administration. I figure, why allow anyone to suck the
^^^^^^^^^
conversation back to whether Clinton did what he was accused of, when the
^^^^^^^^^

*hehe* ... nice words in the same sentence :-)

point is just as easily made even if one assumes he did?

Allowing the argument to shift back to the Clinton era just permits people
to distract from current events.

Pete

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein