![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
... "Mike" wrote in news:6Wbvk.322$1a2.102@trnddc04: "Zebulon" @###@.^net wrote in message ... "Mike" wrote in message news:bobvk.344$393.268@trnddc05... Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7 year investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for you? You go groupie, I bet you even believe the Warren Report. More examples of "profound and original", eh Maxie? I thought you promised to stop being my groupie. That didn't last long. It never does. Bless him. His urges to make a complete idiot out of himself must be overwhelming. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike" wrote in news:u7cvk.325$1a2.234@trnddc04:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... "Mike" wrote in news:6Wbvk.322$1a2.102 @trnddc04: "Zebulon" @###@.^net wrote in message ... "Mike" wrote in message news:bobvk.344$393.268@trnddc05... Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7 year investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for you? You go groupie, I bet you even believe the Warren Report. More examples of "profound and original", eh Maxie? I thought you promised to stop being my groupie. That didn't last long. It never does. Bless him. His urges to make a complete idiot out of himself must be overwhelming. Well, he is an Okie... Bertie |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
... "Mike" wrote in news:u7cvk.325$1a2.234@trnddc04: "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... "Mike" wrote in news:6Wbvk.322$1a2.102 @trnddc04: "Zebulon" @###@.^net wrote in message ... "Mike" wrote in message news:bobvk.344$393.268@trnddc05... Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7 year investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for you? You go groupie, I bet you even believe the Warren Report. More examples of "profound and original", eh Maxie? I thought you promised to stop being my groupie. That didn't last long. It never does. Bless him. His urges to make a complete idiot out of himself must be overwhelming. Well, he is an Okie... That explains a lot. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike" wrote in message news:NSbvk.321$1a2.238@trnddc04... Practicing some of your Bill Clinton spins there Mikey Mouth? You can talk more **** than a Jap radio. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in message
... "Mike" wrote in message news:NSbvk.321$1a2.238@trnddc04... Practicing some of your Bill Clinton spins there Mikey Mouth? You can talk more **** than a Jap radio. ....sez the 12 yr old village idiot. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike" wrote in news:s0dvk.242$Af3.32@trnddc06:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... "Mike" wrote in news:u7cvk.325$1a2.234 @trnddc04: "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... "Mike" wrote in news:6Wbvk.322$1a2.102 @trnddc04: "Zebulon" @###@.^net wrote in message ... "Mike" wrote in message news:bobvk.344$393.268@trnddc05... Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7 year investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for you? You go groupie, I bet you even believe the Warren Report. More examples of "profound and original", eh Maxie? I thought you promised to stop being my groupie. That didn't last long. It never does. Bless him. His urges to make a complete idiot out of himself must be overwhelming. Well, he is an Okie... That explains a lot. Mmmm hhmmmm. Bertie |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 2, 6:41*am, "Mike" wrote:
Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there. The best you can come up with is YOU think Clinton committed perjury, which is clearly your opinion. Yep. I'm your pretty basic person. Lie, and you are a liar. Lie under oath, and it's perjury. Lawyers get paid to twist pretty simple stuff into something complicated, utterly perverting the truth. And still not one of you who believes Clinton committed perjury can come up with any sort of reasonable explanation as to why he was never so much as indicted for that crime. Sometimes the law about who lies the most. Sometimes it's not about the truth. We have lots of examples of that. Unfortunately, such hair-splitting does occur. And not all things that should be get indicted. *Politics on the defense is also at play here. Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? *A 7 year investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for you? An investigation that lasted a long time because there were so many twists and turns, and new episodes, and more bimbo eruptions, and of course nothing like the truth coming from either of the Clintons. Bill dragged it out as much as he could. He only fessed when caught by the blue dress. Lots of his friends got guilty verdicts; my opinion is that the big fish mostly got away. In this case, the "LAWYER" that supplied the definition (that was accepted by the court) worked for Paula Jones. * The only clip I saw was Clinton saying that it depends on your definition of "is". Maybe if he'd said something like "I KNOW the definition of is, and...." It seems he paid a price, albeit smaller than he should, for the perjury/lying or whatever you choose to call it. *He paid a settlement to Jones; he was disbarred for 5 years (should have been for life for such a bad example), etc. Try defending yourself against a politically motivated lawsuit AND a politically motivated $100 million prosecution and see what price you pay.. He wouldn't have had to defend himself if he'd told the truth. Ever. If he'd kept his pants on in the Oval Office and other places, he wouldn't have to defend himself either. *Clinton traded his law license (which he had no intention of ever using) to make the entire $100 million special counsel investigation go away forever (again he would have paid millions to continue to defend himself). * An honest man, or honest lawyer, wouldn't give up a law license without a fight. Clinton was going to lose that one, because he lied. If that doesn't tell you how weak their case was, you are blind to everything except your own ideology. My primary ideology is to dislike liars. Either party, or no party. I suppose legally OJ isn't a murderer either. *Still, I'm not going to a cutlery show with him any time soon, as I have no doubt he shoved a knife into a couple of people. He was also indicted for that crime. Adn got away with it. Which shows what a big team of defense lawyers, who want to cover up the truth, can accomplish. Clinton's lawyers were even better. The question was whether Clinton committed the crime of perjury or not. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
on 9/1/2008 2:12 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
"Mike" wrote in news:gRYuk.180$Dj1.130@trnddc02: "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... "Mike" wrote in news:Q%Uuk.224$jE1.175 @trnddc03: "Zebulon" @###@.^net wrote in message ... "Mike" wrote in message news:%9Uuk.212$jE1.152@trnddc03... That's kind of like saying my garage is not part of my house. Yeah, but since you live in a moble home, it's still true. It's his home so long as he takes up residence there. Furthermore it's not an "honor" as you claim. Clinton was duly elected to the position, and therefore is was his right to occupy the residence, regardless of those who would seek to deny the will of the people by subverting our political system for partisan purposes. Sounds like you got your spin training from Clinton himself. Did he also teach you stalls? Sounds like you're still a 12 yr old who doesn't know his a$$ from a crack. Come back when you grow up. You are unworthy to be my groupie, no matter how much you keep trying. You don't call them groupies. You call them "fanbois" A turd by any other name still smells like $hit. Can't argue with that. But turds can mak your roses grow. can't imagine spreading Maxie on anything would do it any good. He's the Vegemite of Usenet in that way... Come to think of it, probably in other ways. I can imagine he was scraped off the bottom of a brewing vat, for instance. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
... On Sep 2, 6:41 am, "Mike" wrote: Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there. The best you can come up with is YOU think Clinton committed perjury, which is clearly your opinion. Yep. I'm your pretty basic person. Lie, and you are a liar. Lie under oath, and it's perjury. Lawyers get paid to twist pretty simple stuff into something complicated, utterly perverting the truth. Lawyers get paid to defend their clients within the letter of the law. Just because you are unwilling or unable to understand the law, doesn't mean it was broken. And still not one of you who believes Clinton committed perjury can come up with any sort of reasonable explanation as to why he was never so much as indicted for that crime. Sometimes the law about who lies the most. Sometimes it's not about the truth. We have lots of examples of that. Do you have an example of a person who endured a 7 year, $100 million partisan investigation with out so much as an indictment? You still can't come up with anything that approaches a reasonable explanation. Unfortunately, such hair-splitting does occur. And not all things that should be get indicted. Politics on the defense is also at play here. Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7 year investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for you? An investigation that lasted a long time because there were so many twists and turns, and new episodes, and more bimbo eruptions, and of course nothing like the truth coming from either of the Clintons. Bill dragged it out as much as he could. He only fessed when caught by the blue dress. Lots of his friends got guilty verdicts; my opinion is that the big fish mostly got away. Bill dragged it out? You're kidding, right? "Lots of his friends" included no one in his administration and none of the charges involved any Clinton business dealings. Furthermore, those indicted would have been indicted by other prosecutors anyway, and they received lesser sentences for their testimony which never amounted to anything. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some are just more relevant than others. In this case, the "LAWYER" that supplied the definition (that was accepted by the court) worked for Paula Jones. The only clip I saw was Clinton saying that it depends on your definition of "is". Maybe if he'd said something like "I KNOW the definition of is, and...." Or maybe if you were more familiar with the facts of the case you could speak from a position of intelligence rather than from a position of ignorance. The Jones lawyers provided the definition which was accepted by the court. That is a fact regardless of any semantic nonsense you want to allege. It seems he paid a price, albeit smaller than he should, for the perjury/lying or whatever you choose to call it. He paid a settlement to Jones; he was disbarred for 5 years (should have been for life for such a bad example), etc. Try defending yourself against a politically motivated lawsuit AND a politically motivated $100 million prosecution and see what price you pay. He wouldn't have had to defend himself if he'd told the truth. Ever. If he'd kept his pants on in the Oval Office and other places, he wouldn't have to defend himself either. Really? The Jones lawsuit and the independent counsel investigation were going full swing years before the Clinton deposition. Clinton traded his law license (which he had no intention of ever using) to make the entire $100 million special counsel investigation go away forever (again he would have paid millions to continue to defend himself). An honest man, or honest lawyer, wouldn't give up a law license without a fight. Clinton was going to lose that one, because he lied. But you're going to allege that an honest lawyer and prosecutor would let a guilty case go for nothing? How do you reconcile those facts? If that doesn't tell you how weak their case was, you are blind to everything except your own ideology. My primary ideology is to dislike liars. Either party, or no party. I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies. If making misleading statements about an extramarital affair that was really nobody's business and never involved his official functions is the worst of his transgressions, that's not too bad historically speaking. The Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations lied about Iran-Contra. The W. Bush administration lied about Iraq, revealing classified information, and subverting the DOJ for political purposes. My favorite quote is from Kay Hutchinson (who voted to impeach Clinton) about Scooter Libby: Ms. Hutchison said she hoped "that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars." I suppose legally OJ isn't a murderer either. Still, I'm not going to a cutlery show with him any time soon, as I have no doubt he shoved a knife into a couple of people. He was also indicted for that crime. Adn got away with it. Which shows what a big team of defense lawyers, who want to cover up the truth, can accomplish. Clinton's lawyers were even better. And I can show you countless other high profile cases with a big team of defense lawyers that DID get convicted. However the point that completely went over your head was the fact that Clinton never so much as got indicted. So his "big team of defense lawyers" never came into play. The fact that he never so much as got indicted means even the prosecutor wasn't convinced of his case. The question was whether Clinton committed the crime of perjury or not. The USSC says factually correct but misleading answers do not amount to perjury. "deliberately" misleading, or just "mistakely but honestly to the best of my memory" misleading. There's a difference. Not to the USSC. Try reading the decision sometime. They must be lawyers. Whatever happened to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Are you saying people are not entitled to mount a vigorous defense of themselves even though they are complying with the letter of the law? As the USSC is the supreme arbiter of the land, their opinions are what matters, not yours. Something many democrats never accepted after the 2000 elections. And clearly, they are not always right. They just win. Nothing like completely changing the subject when you can't deal with not being "right", eh? I didn't change the subject. You brought up the USSC as the supreme arbiter of the land. There's many a die-hard democrat who can't accept that since 2k. So if I mentioned the words "private parts", that would mean you could bring up Long Dong Silver and not be changing the subject? Sorry, that doesn't pass the BS test. And to wrap this up, since I have other lives to attend to: Clinton's troubles were all his own. He is a compulsive liar; to the nation on TV, to his wife, to the court taking the deposition, and anyone else he wanted to. He is a gifted, charming person, and by all accounts when he walks into a room even his detractors like him. It's just too bad he doesn't have a moral compass or a level of decency to go along with his social skills. As it is, he is simply a skilled liar who is a successful politician. And I don't defend many of the other people involved in that particular part of American Theater either. Making misleading statements about a highly personal matter does not make a compulsive liar regardless of what you think. Clinton mislead whoever he mislead about something that wasn't their business to begin with. In America, most people are obsessed with sex, perhaps because they don't get enough of it. In practically every other civilized country, such statements would have resulted in a brief mention in the press and a few giggles. Only in the US would oral sex be grounds for impeachment. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the true essence of "Mike" -- on display for all to see. No, Mike -- everyone DOESN'T lie. Only people like you -- the ones who do the lying, and defend the liars -- think that "everyone" lies. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 Ercoupe N94856 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Obama/Marx | Orval Fairbairn[_2_] | Piloting | 115 | June 30th 08 06:08 PM |
LOVE POEMS, POETRY & QUOTES | [email protected] | Piloting | 0 | May 7th 07 01:11 PM |
Quotes please... | Casey Wilson | Piloting | 38 | May 24th 06 02:51 AM |
Favourite quotes about flying | David Starer | Soaring | 26 | May 16th 06 05:58 AM |