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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
OT:Actual Quotes from OBAMA book
In article YNfsk.641$w51.45@trnddc01, "Mike" wrote:
"Bob Noel" wrote in message ... In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike" wrote: There was no perjury. He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury. No it's not. 'The offense of willfulling telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation." However your definition does demonstrate why you don't posses the knowledge to argue such points. Isn't my defintion. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. which does not mean he didn't lie. It means he's innocent of perjury. Presumed innocent by the legal system. If you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate yourself before you comment. indeed. Glad you agree. If only others would educate themselves... -- Bob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OT:Actual Quotes from OBAMA book
In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike"
wrote: snip Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire 8 year presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that much when I heard Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his hospitalized wife either, other than the hypocrisy was interesting to note. So unlike some I apply those standards equally. Don't you mean 'the only one we found out about' in eight years? snip So does John McCain, who cheated on and dumped his first wife and mother of his children after she was disabled, yet still voted to remove Clinton from office for his extramarital affair. Apparently he wields enough influence to get a Presidential nomination. Courious how you name two R's but neglected to name John Edwards, the most recent D? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
OT:Actual Quotes from OBAMA book
Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire 8
year presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that much when I heard Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his hospitalized wife either, other than the hypocrisy was interesting to note. So unlike some I apply those standards equally. Cheating on Hillary was never the offense. Using the power of his position to gain sexual favors from an employee *was*. Having sex was never the offense, despite how desperately the Left has tried to make it the salient point of the discussion. There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate yourself before you comment. Lying under oath is perjury. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 Ercoupe N94856 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
OT:Actual Quotes from OBAMA book
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:6Zcsk.256820$TT4.147231@attbi_s22: You know what I feel about him, How??? Because your response is typical and I've seen it dozens of times from those who try to "condemn" the man based on one act that had practically zip to do with the job. Um, it doesn't bother you that a seated (and married, sort of) president used his power and influence to bop a cute (if slightly plump) little intern in the Oval Office? If your school board president was caught doing this, he'd be in prison right now. Yet the president of the United States is above all that because he "otherwise did a good job"? What kind of standard is *that*? One better than the standard that allows you to support a mass murderer. Bertie |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
OT:Actual Quotes from OBAMA book
Bob Noel wrote:
In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike" wrote: There was no perjury. He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury. I hate to wade in here, being a libertarian and not caring to defend either party, but the Senate tried him on the perjury count (among others). The vote was 55 "Not guilcup" and 45 "guilcup" on the perjury charge. By definition that is legal innocence or a party game of charades gone horribly awry. If he had only mimed his answers he wouldn't have had to worry about the perjury charge. Call the next defendANT! |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
OT:Actual Quotes from OBAMA book
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:UWhsk.257146$TT4.104264@attbi_s22: Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire 8 year presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that much when I heard Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his hospitalized wife either, other than the hypocrisy was interesting to note. So unlike some I apply those standards equally. Cheating on Hillary was never the offense. Using the power of his position to gain sexual favors from an employee *was*. Yeah? How did he do that, fjukktard? Bertie |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
OT:Actual Quotes from OBAMA book
On Aug 24, 11:40 am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire 8 year presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that much when I heard Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his hospitalized wife either, other than the hypocrisy was interesting to note. So unlike some I apply those standards equally. I don't like any of that type of behavior. BUT, was Gingrich being investigated in a sexual harassment charge? And, did Gingrich lie to a grand jury? And, did Gingrich conduct his dalliance on the floor of the Senate, which some consider something akin to hallowed ground? There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate yourself before you comment. Impeachment, which did occur, is a pretty good indictment. Lying under oath is perjury. Yes, it is. Even if you get away with it. He did, and he did, mostly. He would have gotten away cleanly, if the blue dress had been laundered. From Wikipedia (not always accurate, but generally a good starting point): "Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205-229 vote) and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148-285 vote). Four Republicans opposed all four articles, while five Democrats voted for at least one of them. Upon passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton became the first elected U.S. president and the second U.S. president to be impeached..." As I recall, after the impeachment, the Senate didn't feel strongly enough to remove him from office. Hence the 45-55 outcome. He didn't get impeached for his dalliances. He got impeached because the investigations that started from a (presumably valid) sexual harassment lawsuit wouldn't end, because more and more witnesses came forward against him, and he lied (and otherwise evaded the truth) to a grand jury after taking an oath. He was later found in contempt of court, paid a fine, was removed from the Arkansas bar and chose to resign from that bar. The aftermath? Preteens and early teens don't think oral sex is sex, and more people than ever think it's okay to lie if you really want to. If a society is to remain free (and it's always a struggle), the truth has to be respected. If you, or I, or the president lies under oath, there should be a swift and sure punishment. We've gotten away from this--we're not after truth, but we are running a stage play. This was brought home to me when I pursued a civil case. The defendants had absolutely no leg to stand on, but I settled out of court because their lies, wholly fabricated, would have been somewhat difficult to prove as lies. At that point, going to the judge, who knows nothing but what he hears, becomes a crapshoot. I got a small part of what was owed me. There is no doubt that much of the prosecution was politically motivated. However, had he been less of a liar and miscreant, such prosecution wouldn't have had much traction. Now, what does all this have to do with piloting??? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
OT:Actual Quotes from OBAMA book
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote: He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury. I hate to wade in here, being a libertarian and not caring to defend either party, but the Senate tried him on the perjury count (among others). The vote was 55 "Not guilcup" and 45 "guilcup" on the perjury charge. By definition that is legal innocence or a party game of charades gone horribly awry. If he had only mimed his answers he wouldn't have had to worry about the perjury charge. Legal findings are not necessarily consistent with actual facts. OJ was acquitted of two counts of murder, which does not mean that he didn't kill those two people. -- Bob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
OT:Actual Quotes from OBAMA book
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
... In article YNfsk.641$w51.45@trnddc01, "Mike" wrote: "Bob Noel" wrote in message ... In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike" wrote: There was no perjury. He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury. No it's not. 'The offense of willfulling telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation." You still don't have it right after two tries. The false testimony has to be material to the case. A person can lie under oath all day long on questions immaterial to the case and never be convicted of perjury, yet this fits both definitions you provided. Again, it's obvious you have no clue about the subject you attempt to argue. However your definition does demonstrate why you don't posses the knowledge to argue such points. Isn't my defintion. It's the incorrect one you provided. That makes it yours. Either you didn't know it was incorrect, or you knew it was incorrect and provided it anyway for reasons one can only guess. Take your pick. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. which does not mean he didn't lie. It means he's innocent of perjury. Presumed innocent by the legal system. Exactly. And anything contrary is a poorly based opinion. The Independent Counsel investigation spent $100 million and the better part of a decade trying to convict Clinton of anything and came back with nothing. Mr. Honeck's suggestion that Clinton got off because of his position is ridiculous to the point of hysteretics. In fact he was federally investigated more than any human being in the history of the United States. So you might want to start asking yourself how someone who was subject to so much scrutiny able to escape without so much as indictment for a charge you're so certain he committed. If you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate yourself before you comment. indeed. Glad you agree. If only others would educate themselves... You still haven't gotten so much as the definition of perjury correct after two tries. You might want to look at yourself first, but that's just a suggestion. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
OT:Actual Quotes from OBAMA book
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:UWhsk.257146$TT4.104264@attbi_s22... Um, even if it did I think I have enough sense not to base an entire 8 year presidency on that single act. I didn't really care that much when I heard Gingrich cheated on and then dumped his hospitalized wife either, other than the hypocrisy was interesting to note. So unlike some I apply those standards equally. Cheating on Hillary was never the offense. Using the power of his position to gain sexual favors from an employee *was*. Having sex was never the offense, despite how desperately the Left has tried to make it the salient point of the discussion. You're kidding right? Do you honestly believe Clinton coerced the chubby intern? There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate yourself before you comment. Lying under oath is perjury. I thought I had already told you that you might want to better educate yourself before you continue to demonstrate your ignorance. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |