 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / November 2005Muslims and peace
I see a lot of people these days saying Muslim is not a religion of peace. I'm curious, do Muslim nations have a history of war mongering? Any more than Christian ones? > I see a lot of people these days saying Muslim is not a religion of peace. > I'm curious, do Muslim nations have a history of war mongering? Any more > than Christian ones? Yes, they do, at least a small percentage of them. While it is very clear that there are millions of decent, peace-loving Muslims, a troublesome minority among them seems to refuse to live in peace with people of other religions, unless Moslims are in total governmental power and the activities of people of other religions are severely restricted (as happens in countries where Moslims are in control). . But in any country where there is freedom of religion, Muslim fanatics are always feuding with others, be they Christian, Buddhist, Jewish or Hindu or whatever. They seem to have a terrible fear of freedom of religion, so they don't like to give people the option of choosing to worship in their religion or in some other, becasue for someone to have freedom of choice and pick some other religion (or no religion) is felt as a terrible rebuke. They are Dark-Age people, primitives who are terrified by modern civilization --hence, it is natural for them to terrorize their "infidel" neighbors on the planet... You'll often hear people talk of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance. But that's only a half-truth. You have to understand that statement from within the context of Islam: Quran 009:029 Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Jews and Christians (and others) are "tolerated" as long as they submit to Muslim rule, acknowledge Islam as a superior religion, and pay tribute. Modern Muslims will say stuff like "this was done for those who lived under the protection of Islam," or "it is a spiritual fight." Don't believe them; it's just another half-truth (or outright lie). Comparing Islam to Christianity is a mistake. Islam stands or falls on its own merit. Saying "it's terrible, but the Christians have done that stuff, too" is an argument often made by Muslim apologists. But if Christianity really is as bad as Islam, then neither one of them should be allowed by any peace-loving people. However, Muslims terrorize because it is commanded by their prophet and their scriptures. But if a Christian terrorizes, it's done in spite of Jesus' teachings, not because of them. You can't dismiss every Muslim atrocity by retorting "Crusades!!!" It doesn't work that way. Not one of the many people killed in Iraq was ever proven guilty of any crime against their attackers whatsoever. The real terrorists are Bush and Cheney. > Not one of the many people killed in Iraq > was ever proven guilty of any crime against > their attackers whatsoever. > > The real terrorists are Bush and Cheney. Are you French? --Ty >> Not one of the many people killed in Iraq >> was ever proven guilty of any crime against [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >--Ty Lol ! SL Not one of the many people killed in Iraq was ever proven guilty of any crime against their attackers whatsoever. The real terrorists are Bush and Cheney, and anyone left who's stupid and/or criminal enough to support them. >Not one of the many people killed in Iraq >was ever proven guilty of any crime against [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and anyone left who's stupid and/or >criminal enough to support them. Wow, that's a stupid person's line. Are you dim? SL >...stupid ... Of course you are: you believe Bush when he claims he speaks for God. Not one of the many people killed in Iraq was ever proven guilty of any crime against their attackers whatsoever. The real terrorists are Bush and Cheney, and anyone left who's stupid and/or criminal enough to support them. >" ... for ... " Wow, you're right! Your erudtition and even-handed treatmen of all sides of the discussion have certainly persuaded me! No, really, tin-foil looks good on you. SL >... even-handed >treatmen [sic] of ... How would you know what that would be? You believe in slaughtering innocent civilians rather than bringing any actual perps to trial. Why do you hate America? >...stupid ... Of course you are: you believe Bush when he claims he speaks for God. Not one of the many people killed in Iraq was ever proven guilty of any crime against their attackers whatsoever. The real terrorists are Bush and Cheney, and anyone left who's stupid and/or criminal enough to support them. >Are you French? > >--Ty I'm American. Why aren't you loyal to the USA? Why do you hate America? Not one of the many people killed in Iraq was ever proven guilty of any crime against their attackers whatsoever. The real terrorists are Bush and Cheney. They're destroying the USA to cash in on it. >>Are you French? >>--Ty > I'm American. Why aren't you loyal to the USA? I always thought I was loyal. Admittedly, I haven't demonstrated my "loyalty" like your ilk has -- blaming the US for all problems, siding with the enemies of civilization, openly hoping for an Islamofascist victory and a US defeat, etc. > Why do you hate America? You seem to have a curious definition of the word "hate"... > Not one of the many people killed in Iraq > was ever proven guilty of any crime against > their attackers whatsoever. Gee...few of the German civilians killed in WWII or the Southern civilians in the American Civil War were ever proven guilty of any crime against their attackers. Applying the same tortured reasoning, you must contend that Lincoln and Roosevelt were the *real* terrorists, yes? So...do you think that the majority of Iraqis wish Saddam was still in power? <evasion/nonanswer predicted> > The real terrorists are Bush and Cheney. Soooo...the democratically elected leaders of a Western democracy are the real terrorists? Rather than murderous vermin like Saddam who funded and supported terrorists, tortured children, and fed people into woodchippers? Really? <shrug> I'm finding it hard to see you on the moral high ground here. I mean, if you want to be a Saddam apologist, well, that's your right. But you really do look silly moralizing about it. > They're destroying the USA to cash in on it. The USA looks pretty much intact to me. The vain hopes of folks like you notwithstanding. --Ty >>>Are you French? > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Applying the same tortured reasoning, you must contend that Lincoln and >Roosevelt were the *real* terrorists, yes? Actually, yes. It's not uncommon at all even today to hear people around Atlanta revile Lincoln and General Sherman as war criminals and terrorists. And Roosevelt's bombing of civilian targets in WWII in Germany does indeed qualify under many common definitions of "terrorism". Dresden, in particular, was an outright terrorist act designed to demoralize the German citizenry and cause enough terror in them to get them to rise up against their government. In the Pacific, General Curtis Lemay's firebombing of Tokyo was undisguised terrorism, and LeMay himself said that if the US had lost the war, he would have been tried as a war criminal. But it seems that in YOUR book, "terrorism" is only what the OTHER guys do. >So...do you think that the majority of Iraqis wish Saddam was still in >power? <evasion/nonanswer predicted> Actually, I'd be willing to bet that a very good percentage of the ones who are still alive would rather the US had not invaded. Saddam was a brutal a.shole, but he was THEIR brutal a.shole, and they knew what to expect and how to deal with it. Now they are occupied by people they see as brutal a.sholes who are running tanks through the streets and dropping bombs and killing people at a much higher rate than Saddam was. The country is in chaos now and looking only to get worse for a long time. >> The real terrorists are Bush and Cheney. > >Soooo...the democratically elected leaders of a Western democracy are the >real terrorists? Rather than murderous vermin like Saddam who funded and >supported terrorists, tortured children, and fed people into woodchippers? Where ARE those woodchippers, anyway? We used to hear about them all the time - and now, of course it's only right-wing wackos on the net who bother trotting them out in their pathetic arguments. But nobody's ever actually *seen* them, there are no photographs of them. Do you know why? Probably the same reason that we've never seen the sharks from Uday & Qusay's special shark pool that they supposedly used to throw people into. You've fallen for the lies that were fed to you. I suppose you still think Saddam's got some WMD's stashed away somewhere, too, eh? >Really? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >The USA looks pretty much intact to me. That's because you're not paying attention. Been to New Orleans lately? There are record deficits as far as the eye can see, and assault on science, corruption throughout the republican leadership, our military is stretched thin and over 2000 soldiers have died and more than 15,000 wounded, many maimed seriously. The National Guard is overseas and not at home providing resources for things like hurricane relief. The United States is reviled around the world, our president causes riots when he visits other nations. etc. etc. etc. >The vain hopes of folks like you notwithstanding. It's not hopes, it's despair. > On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:40:16 GMT, "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> >>Gee...few of the German civilians killed in WWII or the Southern civilians >>in the American Civil War were ever proven guilty of any crime against >>their >>attackers. >>Applying the same tortured reasoning, you must contend that Lincoln and >>Roosevelt were the *real* terrorists, yes? > Actually, yes. It's not uncommon at all even today to hear people > around Atlanta revile Lincoln and General Sherman as war criminals and > terrorists. So...you wish that the Civil War had not occurred? In any case, I am not persuaded that Lincoln was a war criminal, and in any case that he was somehow worse than the slaveowning Southern aristocracy. > And Roosevelt's bombing of civilian targets in WWII in > Germany does indeed qualify under many common definitions of > "terrorism". Uh, no. It is well settled in international law that collateral damage is not a war crime, nor is it "terrorism" under any meaningful definition of the term. In the case of Germany, the attacks were against military targets. Unfortunately, the technology of the time made it impossible to hit these targets and spare noncombattants. > Dresden, in particular... I don't want to get into a discussion on Dresden, but there are a number of historical sources that make the case that there was a legitimate military reason for bombing Dresden. Cf. https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm . > ..., was an outright terrorist act > designed to demoralize the German citizenry and cause enough terror in > them to get them to rise up against their government. See the appropriate analysis above for a contrary interpretation. > In the Pacific, > General Curtis Lemay's firebombing of Tokyo was undisguised terrorism, > and LeMay himself said that if the US had lost the war, he would have > been tried as a war criminal. Given the brutality that the Japanese showed to those they conquered, I wouldn't put much stock in their interpretation of the term "war criminal". Nor am I inclined to lie awake at night sobbing over their suffering. I expect that the citizens of Nanking, the survivors of Battaan, etc., have a far less friendly interpretation of these events than you... > But it seems that in YOUR book, "terrorism" is only what the OTHER > guys do. Since I haven't defined "terrorism", you statement is rather curious. >>So...do you think that the majority of Iraqis wish Saddam was still in >>power? <evasion/nonanswer predicted> > Actually, I'd be willing to bet that a very good percentage of the > ones who are still alive would rather the US had not invaded. <blink> So you actually think that the Kurds and Shiites -- 80% of the Iraqi people -- wish that Saddam were still in power? >>> The real terrorists are Bush and Cheney. >>Soooo...the democratically elected leaders of a Western democracy are the >>real terrorists? Rather than murderous vermin like Saddam who funded and >>supported terrorists, tortured children, and fed people into woodchippers? > Where ARE those woodchippers, anyway? <yawn> It is clear that he tortured children, funded terrorists and was directly responsible for the slaughter of many thousands of people. So even if the woodchippers don't exist, he is still a vile, despicable, murderous vermin. However, I am touched at your sympathy and defense of Saddam. >>I'm finding it hard to see you on the moral high ground here. I mean, if >>you >>want to be a Saddam apologist, well, that's your right. But you really do >>look silly moralizing about it. >>> They're destroying the USA to cash in on it. >>The USA looks pretty much intact to me. > That's because you're not paying attention. Been to New Orleans > lately? Uh, so Bush and Cheney are responsible for a hurricane? >>The vain hopes of folks like you notwithstanding. > It's not hopes, it's despair. Nah, it's hopes. And they are vain hopes. --Ty > > On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:40:16 GMT, "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > In any case, I am not persuaded that Lincoln was a war criminal, and in any > case that he was somehow worse than the slaveowning Southern aristocracy. But Lincoln did indeed violate the Constitution's guarantee of states rights. > > And Roosevelt's bombing of civilian targets in WWII in > > Germany does indeed qualify under many common definitions of [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > > --Ty > "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> So...you wish that the Civil War had not occurred? >> In any case, I am not persuaded that Lincoln was a war criminal, and in >> any >> case that he was somehow worse than the slaveowning Southern aristocracy. > But Lincoln did indeed violate the Constitution's guarantee of states > rights. I have not been persuaded by that argument, though I do agree that there is some merit to the legal arguments. The real problem is that the Constitution simply did not include procedures for leaving the Union. And since the Framers were brilliant men, I think it's reasonable to conclude that this omission was intentional. Of course, we can debate whether this meant "no secession" or whether it meant "you can leave any time". But I don't think the matter is clear one way or another. I have not researched the Constitutional debates to see if this was discussed, however. In any case, the outcome of the Civil War was a Very Good Thing IMHO. It ended chattel slavery in North America. It also triggered the American economic engine which resulted in US economic and military dominance in the 20th (and I expect, the 21st) century. Catton, for instance, asserts that by 1865, Northern industrial output exceeded that of Great Britain. Also, it's hard to see how a divided and hostile Confederacy and Union would have been able to help the Western European democracies against the scourges of Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism. So the fact that it was the best result makes me willing to resolve the legal ambiguities in Lincoln's favor. In any case, I was merely pointing out the absurdity of arguing that a war (or a leader) is somehow unjust and immoral if civilians die. Even the village idiot knows that civilians *always* die in wartime. And Iraqi civilian casualties have been remarkably light when compared to other wars of the last 100 years. They are also less than Saddam averaged every year or so in his reign. (3 years if you believe that absurd and discredited estimate in the Lancet). But of course, these folks aren't *really* worried about casualties or the Iraqi people. After all, they are perfectly willing to argue that Saddam should still be in power and brutalizing his people. What they are really motivated by is an irrational and bizarre hatred of Bush and/or the US. But they are too cowardly and dishonest to simply admit this. So rather than simply admit that they are hysterical, hypocrites, they *pretend* hate Saddam as well. An old trick, really, and obvious to most intelligent people. You oppose something (like the removal of Saddam), but want to be *seen* as supporting it. So you pretend to support it, but only if impossible conditions are met. "I support the removal of Saddam, but not if anyone dies..." Sadly, these morons seem to think that no one notices their hypocrisy and dishonesty. --Ty >> "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > --Ty I think you are too harsh on those of us who oppose the Iraq war. I don't "pretend" hate Saddam, he was a monster but my position is simply that his removal wasn't worth the loss of 2000 (so far) of our American soldiers. There are lots of monsters running other countries too, but that's their problem, not ours. At least not to the point where we should offer up the lives of our soldiers to remove them. Don >I think you are too harsh on those of us who oppose the Iraq war. I don't >"pretend" hate Saddam, he was a monster but my position is simply that his [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Don Right on. It's one thing to support the war in Iraq. I can argue respectfully about that, and the other side may have some valid points. But when they start in with the "Saddam-lover" or "hate the US" bullshit, they expose themselves as vile gutter trash, and I lose all respect for them. > "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> An old trick, really, and obvious to most intelligent people. You oppose >> something (like the removal of Saddam), but want to be *seen* as >> supporting it. So you pretend to support it, but only if impossible >> conditions are met. "I support the removal of Saddam, but not if anyone >> dies..." >> Sadly, these morons seem to think that no one notices their hypocrisy and >> dishonesty. > I think you are too harsh on those of us who oppose the Iraq war. I don't > "pretend" hate Saddam, he was a monster but my position is simply that his > removal wasn't worth the loss of 2000 (so far) of our American soldiers. > There are lots of monsters running other countries too, but that's their > problem, not ours. At least not to the point where we should offer up the > lives of our soldiers to remove them. I don't have a problem with those who think that removing Saddam was not the best use of American forces. That is a fact issue, and while I disagree with you, I recognize that reasonable people can disagree on this point. Unfortunately, too many in the purported "antiwar" camp oppose the war for far more dubious and hypocritical reasons. Inter alia, they *claim* to oppose the war because: 1. It was somehow immoral to remove a vicious, murdering animal like Saddam; 2. It was somehow immoral to resort to military action if *any* civilians were likely to die; 3. It was somehow better for the majority of Iraqis for Saddam and his genocidal offspring to remain in control of Iraq; 4. Bush and Cheney are somehow worse than a murderous, genocidal dictator like Saddam. Et cetera. These positions are, in my opinion, morally indefensible. And hypocritical in the case of those folks who were perfectly happy to demand US intervention all over the globe for "humanitarian" reasons. At least when a Democrat was in office. --Ty >> "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >1. It was somehow immoral to remove a vicious, murdering animal like Saddam; Who has claimed that? Name names. Cite a quote. >2. It was somehow immoral to resort to military action if *any* civilians >were likely to die; Again - WHO has claimed that? Name names. Show us the quote. Civilian casualties are a fact of war, and they must be factored in. While the fact that civilians will be killed is ALWAYS a factor arguing AGAINST any war, it is not by itself the *deciding* factor. But it shouldLWAYS be counted amongst the cons when weighing the pros and cons. And a relevant sub-factor is how MANY civilians will be killed, wounded, displaced, etc., how they might meet these fates, etc. So when it's cited in this war as one of many reason not go start THIS war, it is just ONE of the arguments. It is bogus for you to say that people were againt ANY military action if civilians were likely to die. For example, I, and many who oppose the Iraq war, were all in favor of the Afghanistan war - even if civilians were likely to die. That's because there was a REASON for that war. They, through their "guests" al Qaeda, had attacked us. And yes, the likelihood of civilian casualties was an argument against that war. But there were more arguments FOR that war, and they were more important. That wasn't true in Iraq. The positive arguments for the war in Iraq did not outweigh all the various negative arguments. >3. It was somehow better for the majority of Iraqis for Saddam and his >genocidal offspring to remain in control of Iraq; That is debatable, and I don't think either of us knows the answer. But the point is: it's not for US to decide. It's not our issue. The only issue for the US would be if it was better FOR THE US that Saddam remain in power. And that, clearly, is the case. We would have 2000 more living soldiers, 15,000 of them would not be maimed, the costs wouldn't be coming out of the taxpayers' wallets, the US would not have lost such prestige in the world, there would not be a huge terrorist training ground in Iraq today, etc. etc. etc. >4. Bush and Cheney are somehow worse than a murderous, genocidal dictator >like Saddam. People who say that are, I agree, way over the top and out of line. Bush and Cheney are not worse than Saddam. But they are the worst administration the US has ever had and they have their own set of faults. >Et cetera. > >These positions are, in my opinion, morally indefensible. And, for the most part, figments of your imagination. > And hypocritical >in the case of those folks who were perfectly happy to demand US >intervention all over the globe for "humanitarian" reasons. Not wars. Most of the peaceniks also opposed Clinton's use of force in the Balkans (including myself). it was only after it came out so successfully that I begrudgingly came to accept it. But the use of US forces in places like Haiti, Bosnia, Macedonia, etc. were not WARS, they were excercises in PEACE, and that is a whole different thing. > At least when a >Democrat was in office. And, by the same token, isn't it funny how the republicans howled about all that stuff when Clinton was in office - even though the only soldiers we lost during those 8 years in hostile actions were the ones in the ill-fated raid in Somalia? In all of the other military uses that Clinton carried out, we didn't lose 1 soldier (except one or two who stepped on a land mine in Bosnia). And here's something for you to think about in Iraq: The US is not well liked by Arab Muslims. That is pretty universal. Even the ones who are happy that Saddam is gone are not fond of Americans, and they are not particularly happy with the US occupation of their country. The likely outcome of a democracy in Iraq (the BEST thing we can hope for) is that they will have a government of Shiite fundamentalist Islamists who hate the US and are sympathetic to al Qaeda. So what are we doing? We're TRAINING THEIR ARMY. If we manage to do a good job, when we're done and we leave, they will have a modern, well-trained, professional, well-equipped military under the control of a US-hating Islamist fundamentalist government. Does this really seem like a good idea to you? Was Saddam's crappy army of surrender-monkeys a better thing for the rest of the world? > And here's something for you to think about in Iraq: The US is not > well liked by Arab Muslims. Not surprising since they don't seem to like *any* infidels. Not even the French, it seems. > That is pretty universal. Even the ones > who are happy that Saddam is gone are not fond of Americans, and they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > well-trained, professional, well-equipped military under the control > of a US-hating Islamist fundamentalist government. <shrug> The problem is that Islamist governments have proven fundamentally incapable of maintaining effective military forces. On the other hand, an Iraqi democracy might well be able to maintain a decent force (by Arab standards at least). > Does this really > seem like a good idea to you? Was Saddam's crappy army of > surrender-monkeys a better thing for the rest of the world? An interesting -- though bizarre -- idea. We should not intervene anywhere in the world where the local genocidal lunocrat has a crappy army? And we should *never* supply training to any government that has a chance of being overthrown? Uh, whatever. --Ty >> And here's something for you to think about in Iraq: The US is not >> well liked by Arab Muslims. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >The problem is that Islamist governments have proven fundamentally incapable >of maintaining effective military forces. But we're trying to change that. In fact, when the Bush administration says we need to "finish the mission" in Iraq, what does it mean? The only one of the "missions" that were proposed that hasn't been either tossed by the wayside (disarming Saddam's WMD's) or accomplished (deposing Saddam, holding elections, making a constitution) by now is: trainign their army. So what you Bush Davidians are advocating now is, simply put, creating a competent professional and well-equipped army for this Islamist state. > On the other hand, an Iraqi >democracy might well be able to maintain a decent force (by Arab standards >at least). The "Arab democracy" will, by definition, do the will of its people. And in Iraq that will mean an anti-US Islamist Shiite electorate. With a "decent force". Good idea. >> Does this really >> seem like a good idea to you? Was Saddam's crappy army of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Uh, whatever. Did you not read what I wrote, or are you just doing your comedy thing, pretending not to understand it? Let me try it again: We should not supply miltary training and materiel to a country that might use their miltary against us. > Let me try it again: We should not supply miltary training and > materiel to a country that might use their miltary against us. Oh I understood you the first time. Since such a ridiculous policy would have prevented the US from aiding the Soviets in WWII, the British and French in WWI and WWII, Japan after WWII, etc., I am not confident of your mental competence. However, it is at least a more imaginative "reason" to oppose the removal of Saddam than most of your ilk seem to be able to come up with. I give it five points. --Ty > > Let me try it again: We should not supply miltary training and > > materiel to a country that might use their miltary against us. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > --Ty "An enemy of my enemy is my friend" is operative since Saddam was our friend at that time. He acted like a democrat and turned on his friends afterward. We also supplied Japan with materiel before WWII and they turned on us. jt >> > Let me try it again: We should not supply miltary training and >> > materiel to a country that might use their miltary against us. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >"An enemy of my enemy is my friend" is operative since Saddam was our friend >at that time. Then you must think Osama Bin Laden was our "friend" because he was Saddam's enemy. You're a stranger to logic, aren't you" LOL! > He acted like a democrat and turned on his friends afterward. >We also supplied Japan with materiel >before WWII and they turned on us. That's the danger of supplying war materiel to anybody. > >> > Let me try it again: We should not supply miltary training and > >> > materiel to a country that might use their miltary against us. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Then you must think Osama Bin Laden was our "friend" because he was > Saddam's enemy. You're a stranger to logic, aren't you" LOL! He was NOT Saddam's enemy. Wake up! Saddam was helping to fund al Qaeda. > > He acted like a democrat and turned on his friends afterward. > >We also supplied Japan with materiel > >before WWII and they turned on us. > > That's the danger of supplying war materiel to anybody. How about France, Russia and England? I still wonder about France and Russia today. jt -- Without the second amendment the first amendment means nil. www.townhall.com www.newsmax.com www.nranews.org >> >"An enemy of my enemy is my friend" is operative since Saddam was our >friend [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >He was NOT Saddam's enemy. Wake up! Saddam was helping to fund al Qaeda. There's a large part of your problem right there: you don't know what the f.ck you're talking about. When you start off with bad info, all your conclusions are suspect at best. > >> >"An enemy of my enemy is my friend" is operative since Saddam was our > >friend [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the f.ck you're talking about. When you start off with bad info, all > your conclusions are suspect at best. Were you in "Desert Storm"? I was. A lot was known about bin Laden and Saddam that CNN covered up and later fired some reporters for show. Or haven't you been awake? jt -- Without the second amendment the first amendment means nil. www.townhall.com www.newsmax.com www.nranews.org >> >> >"An enemy of my enemy is my friend" is operative since Saddam was our >> >friend [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Were you in "Desert Storm"? I was. ROTFL!! So you were the guy assigned to burn the 55-gal drums from the latrines, eh? > A lot was known about bin Laden and >Saddam that CNN covered up and later fired some reporters for show. Or >haven't you been awake? Then you should tell Bush about it, because he hasn't been able to come up with any ties, and it would help his case tremendously. It really is quite remarkable that YOU would have this earth-shattering knowledge that nobody else has. BTW - During Desert Storm, I doubt that you had ever even HEARD of bin Laden. Nobody else had. That was before he had started committing terrorism against the US and he was not on anybody's radar as a particularly dangerous fellow. In those days, in fact, The Reagan/Bushes were still calling the Mujahedin "The moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers". > >> >> >"An enemy of my enemy is my friend" is operative since Saddam was our > >> >friend [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ROTFL!! So you were the guy assigned to burn the 55-gal drums from > the latrines, eh? I was a ship's officer. > > A lot was known about bin Laden and > >Saddam that CNN covered up and later fired some reporters for show. Or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > really is quite remarkable that YOU would have this earth-shattering > knowledge that nobody else has. Wrong. Lots of ties have been discovered but the liberal bush hating media just glaze over them if they report them at all. > BTW - During Desert Storm, I doubt that you had ever even HEARD of bin > Laden. Nobody else had. That was before he had started committing > terrorism against the US and he was not on anybody's radar as a > particularly dangerous fellow. In those days, in fact, The > Reagan/Bushes were still calling the Mujahedin "The moral equivalent > of the Founding Fathers". Bin Laden had been helping drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan before the Gulf war. He was well known. I never paid a lot of attention to him but he WAS known. You only have the liberal sources who hate Bush to rely on. Kinda like standing on thin ice, right? jt -- Without the second amendment the first amendment means nil. www.townhall.com www.newsmax.com www.nranews.org >> >> >> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:56:09 GMT, "John Tibbs" ><jwtibbs@earthlink.net> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >I was a ship's officer. So in other words, you didn't know sh.t about the political situation. Okay. >> > A lot was known about bin Laden and >> >Saddam that CNN covered up and later fired some reporters for show. Or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Wrong. Lots of ties have been discovered but the liberal bush hating media >just glaze over them if they report them at all. Bullshit. The only one anybody made any serious noise about was Mohammed Atta's supposed meeting in Prague with Saddam's henchmen. Problem is, according to both the FBI and the CIA, Atta was in the US at that time. Other than that, nothing. If you got something, post it. And send it to Bush, he could use it. >> BTW - During Desert Storm, I doubt that you had ever even HEARD of bin >> Laden. Nobody else had. That was before he had started committing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >WAS known. You only have the liberal sources who hate Bush to rely on. >Kinda like standing on thin ice, right? What bullshit. You're busted (once again) as a lying sack 'o' poop. Bin Laden was not particularly active in Afghanistan in repelling the Russians. He was just a rich Saudi who supplied things like bulldozers and construction equipment. He designed and built a lot of the cave systems up in Tora Bora and the like. But he wasn't what the US would call a "terrorist" at that point - and there would have been zero reason for you to ever have heard of him. You're busted. You're just lying, that's all. Ty echoes demagogues: > 4. Bush and Cheney are somehow worse than a murderous, genocidal dictator > like Saddam. No, Bush and Cheney aren't more evil than Saddam Hussein. They are merely more evil, Cheney in particular, than any previous occupants of the White House and eventually will be dealt with not only as vanquished political opponents but as war criminals. > Ty echoes demagogues: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with not only as vanquished political opponents but as war > criminals. But their legacys won't be MONIKA! jt -- Without the second amendment the first amendment means nil. www.townhall.com www.newsmax.com www.nranews.org > But their legacys won't be MONIKA! True. Of course, it is most entertaining to hear Clinton supporters whining about liars in the White House. --Ty > > But their legacys won't be MONIKA! > > True. Of course, it is most entertaining to hear Clinton supporters whining > about liars in the White House. > > --Ty Is anyone surprised at that? I don't think so. Hypocrites are hypocrites after all. jt -- Without the second amendment the first amendment means nil. www.townhall.com www.newsmax.com www.nranews.org > "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> True. Of course, it is most entertaining to hear Clinton supporters > whining >> about liars in the White House. > Is anyone surprised at that? I don't think so. Hypocrites are hypocrites > after all. I am surprised at their optimism. They actually seem to think that no one sees their hypocrisy for what it is. --Ty > > "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > --Ty Liberals can never see themselves as they are anyway. jt >> But their legacys won't be MONIKA! > >True. Of course, it is most entertaining to hear Clinton supporters whining >about liars in the White House. Actually, it's MORE entertaining to hear people who favored the IMPEACHMENT of a president for a lie about a bl.wj.b in a totally consensual affir that hurt no-one make excuses for the incredible lies that have come from THIS White House costing thousands of lies and hundreds of billion of dollars. And what's REALLY entertaining is to listen to the people who impeached Bill Clinton excusing the outing of a CIA undercover officer and whining about the indictment of Scooter Libby on "mere meaningless technicalities" like perjury and obstructing justice. > >> But their legacys won't be MONIKA! > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that have come from THIS White House costing thousands of lies and > hundreds of billion of dollars. Not to mention he lied to deny a citizen of her right to the courts. > And what's REALLY entertaining is to listen to the people who > impeached Bill Clinton excusing the outing of a CIA undercover officer > and whining about the indictment of Scooter Libby on "mere meaningless > technicalities" like perjury and obstructing justice. Joe Wilson hasn't been excused yet has he? jt >> >> But their legacys won't be MONIKA! >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Not to mention he lied to deny a citizen of her right to the courts. That was the right-wing wacko charge, but it was thrown out as being totally without merit. And then he was acquitted of all charges that he even lied. And besides, even if he HAD done what you say, that's a fart in the wind compared to Bush's Hurricane Iraq lies. >> And what's REALLY entertaining is to listen to the people who >> impeached Bill Clinton excusing the outing of a CIA undercover officer >> and whining about the indictment of Scooter Libby on "mere meaningless >> technicalities" like perjury and obstructing justice. > >Joe Wilson hasn't been excused yet has he? Excused of what He was 100% correct. > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:41:13 GMT, "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> > And what's REALLY entertaining is to listen to the people who > impeached Bill Clinton excusing the outing of a CIA undercover officer > and whining about the indictment of Scooter Libby on "mere meaningless > technicalities" like perjury and obstructing justice. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm all for the incarceration of grown men who go by the nickname "Scooter". And if he perjured himself, then he should be prosecuted. Like Clinton should have been. In any case, I can't wait to apply these laws to Democrats. Release the hounds! --Ty >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:41:13 GMT, "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >In any case, I can't wait to apply these laws to Democrats. Release the >hounds! Well, we can agree on that. Any politician who lies and is corrupt should be in jail. Of any party. > > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:41:13 GMT, "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And if he perjured himself, then he should be prosecuted. Like Clinton > should have been. Well, Clinton did pay Paula Jones to avoid another trial. > In any case, I can't wait to apply these laws to Democrats. Release the > hounds! > > --Ty How can one apply 'double standards' ? The dems think they should be immune to accountability. jt >> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:41:13 GMT, "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Well, Clinton did pay Paula Jones to avoid another trial. Yeah, after the first one had been thrown out as been totally without any merit. But with Scaife backing her, Paula (or, more accurately, her lawyers and the anti-Clinton VRWC) was not going to stop with her nuisance suits. So Clinton and his lawyers just figured it would be cheaper and easier just to pay her off so she would go away. Personally, I don't think he should have done it. She had NO case, and could not possibly have won, so he should have stood his ground. >> In any case, I can't wait to apply these laws to Democrats. Release the >> hounds! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >How can one apply 'double standards' ? The dems think they should be immune >to accountability. ROTFLOL!! My gawd - top hear a supporter of the BUSH administration talking about accountability is truly funny. To the Bush Davidians, accountability means when you totally f.ck up and start a war based on lies and at BEST completely WRONG intelligence, you get the Medal of Freedom. Sheesh! > >> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:41:13 GMT, "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Personally, I don't think he should have done it. She had NO case, > and could not possibly have won, so he should have stood his ground. Simple, stupid. Clinton knew he would lose since the 'stained dress' came to light. Can you say "DNA"? > >> In any case, I can't wait to apply these laws to Democrats. Release the > >> hounds! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Sheesh! >> >> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:41:13 GMT, "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >to light. >Can you say "DNA"? Monica Lewinski's dress had nothing to do with the Paula Jones case. Jeeze... you are astoundingly dumb. > >> >> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:41:13 GMT, "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Jeeze... you are astoundingly dumb. That's exactly what happened! The dress proved Clinton was perjurer and that was what made the judge change her mind about him. jt -- Without the second amendment the first amendment means nil. www.townhall.com www.newsmax.com www.nranews.org >> >> >> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:41:13 GMT, "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >That's exactly what happened! The dress proved Clinton was perjurer and >that was what made the judge change her mind about him. Nope. Lewinski had nothign to do with the Paula Jones case - the judge threw all that testimony out as being irrelevant, and then she tossed Jones' entire case as being without merit. That is to say, even if everything Jones alleged were true, she would still have had no reason to bring the suit. There were no damages. And Clinton was acquitted of perjury. The exact words out of Chief Justice Rehnquist's mouth were: "Not Gulty". Busted again, liar. > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:29:30 GMT, "John Tibbs" <jwtibbs@earthlink.net> > And Clinton was acquitted of perjury. The exact words out of Chief > Justice Rehnquist's mouth were: "Not Gulty". > Busted again, liar. Maybe you should learn more about the topic before making such unfortunate statements. Clinton was acquitted by the US Senate -- not a court of law -- of perjury charges. EVERY Democrat and 10 Republicans voted to acquit. Rehnquist was the presiding officer over the proceedings. Clinton was not prosecuted for his false statements under oath ("perjury") in the Jones case. Thus despite the fact that many folks are behind bars for lying under oath. Cf Martha Stewart. He was disbarred by the US Supreme Court. The Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct initiated proceedings to disbar him as well, but he voluntarily relinquished his law license. --Ty >> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:29:30 GMT, "John Tibbs" <jwtibbs@earthlink.net> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >charges. EVERY Democrat and 10 Republicans voted to acquit. Rehnquist was >the presiding officer over the proceedings. Exactly as I said. Acquitted. Not guilty. >Clinton was not prosecuted for his false statements under oath ("perjury") >in the Jones case. Thus despite the fact that many folks are behind bars for >lying under oath. Cf Martha Stewart. Because there was not a procesutor in this country who would bring charges against anyone for perjury under the circumstances of that case. Even if he had lied under oath (which he actually didn't - he merely weselled and lawyered), it wasn't germane to the case, and that is a necessary requirement for perjury charges. There is simply no way there ever would have been a conviction, so there was no way there would even be charges. It was ONLY the partisan antics of conservative republican wackos that got it into a trial in the Senate. So this is even MORE a repudiation of Tubbs' lies - not only wasn't he guilty of perjury - he wasn't even CHARGED with it (in a court of law). >He was disbarred by the US Supreme Court. No he wasn't. Look it up and get back to me with a cite for that. > The Arkansas Supreme Court >Committee on Professional Conduct initiated proceedings to disbar him as >well, but he voluntarily relinquished his law license. Another highly partisan committee doing politics, not law. Face it, you guys got spanked on that whole Clinton deal. 7 Years and $70million for NOTHING. And Clinton's approval ratings WHILE HE WAS BEING IMPEACHED were TWICE what Bush's are now. >>Clinton was acquitted by the US Senate -- not a court of law -- of perjury >>charges. EVERY Democrat and 10 Republicans voted to acquit. Rehnquist was >>the presiding officer over the proceedings. > Exactly as I said. Acquitted. Not guilty. A rather Clintonesque statement. He was acquitted *in the Senate* but not in a court of law. Since acquittals almost always happen in a court of law, I think that you should have included this information in your statement. >>Clinton was not prosecuted for his false statements under oath ("perjury") >>in the Jones case. Thus despite the fact that many folks are behind bars >>for >>lying under oath. Cf Martha Stewart. > Because there was not a procesutor in this country who would bring > charges against anyone for perjury under the circumstances of that > case. Hmmn. Someone should tell that to Martha and Scooter. > Even if he had lied under oath (which he actually didn't - he > merely weselled and lawyered) Under oath, here's some of his testimony: Q: Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky? A: No (Clinton Deposition in Jones case, pg 78, lines 4-6) <shrug> Please explain to us how that is not a lie. > , it wasn't germane to the case, The judge in the case ruled that the testimony was relevant and was it was permissible to ask him about it. Clinton was accused of sexually harrassing an employee. A pattern of engaging in sexual conduct with other employees would be a highly relevant, it seems to me. > and that > is a necessary requirement for perjury charges. Actually the requirement is that the testimony be "material". This is a fact issue to be decided by a jury, not by Clinton nor by you. From a federal legal treatise, discussing the materiality requirement: "The false statement must be material to the proceedings. A false statement is material if it has 'a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed.' ... The testimony need not have actually influenced, misled or impeded the proceeding. ... A similarly broad construction of materiality is appropriate in the context of false declarations made in connection with civil depositions. ...The statement may be material to any proper matter of inquiry, including collateral matters that might influence the outcome of decisions before the tribunal, such as determining credibility issues. ... Materiality is not negated merely because the tribunal did not believe the testimony or sought cumulative information." I deleted case cites and some irrelevant examples. But clearly, the Lewinsky questions could have satisfied the requirement of materiality. And by the way...where are all those self-righteous lefties who wanted to hang Clarence Thomas for purportedly telling a dirty joke to an employee. Clinton seduces a 21 year old intern, then commits perjury to hide it, then lies to the American people, and all you lefties can say is "poor Bill"? > There is simply no way there ever would have been a conviction Well, the judges that I practice in front of would have put him *under* the prison. So I'm curious as to what you base that claim on. > so > there was no way there would even be charges. It was ONLY the > partisan antics of conservative republican wackos that got it into a > trial in the Senate. So you are not troubled by the President of the United States lying in a deposition under oath? >>He was disbarred by the US Supreme Court. > No he wasn't. Look it up and get back to me with a cite for that. Your ignorance bores me. A Yahoo search turned up 89,000 sites, but we can start with http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35470,00.html . >> The Arkansas Supreme Court >>Committee on Professional Conduct initiated proceedings to disbar him as >>well, but he voluntarily relinquished his law license. > Another highly partisan committee doing politics, not law. Yeah, everyone knows that almost all attorneys are right wing zealots... I'll have to remember that defense if I ever have to defend the disbarment of an attorney who lies under oath. "Madam Chairman, it is true that my client told a flat-out lie under oath. But he's not guilty of perjury and should not be disbarred because this bar association is a highly partisan committee doing politics not law..." Hmm. I just don't think they'll buy it. > Face it, you guys got spanked on that whole Clinton deal. To the contrary, I think Clinton was the greatest Republican president ever. He passed things that Republicans could only dream of -- like free trade, welfare reform. In two years, he accomplished what the Republicans couldn't do in 50 years -- a Republican majority in both houses. His feckless and hamfisted foreign policy convinced a generation of Americans that Democrats couldn't be trusted with national security in wartime. He completely destroyed the shrill, hysterical feminists by exposing their utter hypocrisy. One particularly stupid feminist actually said that men should get a free grope before it became harassment. Wow. And of course, he has exposed the hypocrisy of so many other lefties who now whine about "liars in the White House". I loved the guy. He sold you morons out AND YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT. Beautiful. --Ty >>>Clinton was acquitted by the US Senate -- not a court of law -- of perjury >>>charges. EVERY Democrat and 10 Republicans voted to acquit. Rehnquist was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >A rather Clintonesque statement. What? Not at all. It is clear, concise, and entirely accurate. Nothing equivocal about it. > He was acquitted *in the Senate* but not in >a court of law. In the ONLY place he was tried, yes. There was no chance even of charges being brought anywhere else - it was pure politics from the get-go. > Since acquittals almost always happen in a court of law, I >think that you should have included this information in your statement. Why? He was not tried in a court of law. Where he WAS tried, he was acquitted. Period. No confusion. >>>Clinton was not prosecuted for his false statements under oath ("perjury") >>>in the Jones case. Thus despite the fact that many folks are behind bars [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Hmmn. Someone should tell that to Martha and Scooter. The circumstances of their cases are quite different. Fact is, Clinton didn't commit perjury, and there wasn't a prosecutor around who would claim otherwise. That was not true of Martha and Scooter. >> Even if he had lied under oath (which he actually didn't - he >> merely weselled and lawyered) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Please explain to us how that is not a lie. Because it was all dependent on the inquisitor's tortured and bullshit definition of "sexual relations": Deposition Exhibit 1 defines "Sexual Relations" as when a person knowingly engages in or causes "contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person." Clinton did not cause contact with her to cause her any gratification. She never got off during any of this. Now, I will agree that that's lawyerly *weaseling*, but that's what happens in courts of law. Especially when one side is trying to construct an intricate perjury trap. Explain to us how, if it WAS a lie, it wasn't prosecuted as perjury. >> , it wasn't germane to the case, > >The judge in the case ruled that the testimony was relevant and was it was >permissible to ask him about it. Before the deposition. Then, afterwards, she ruled it irrelevant and threw it all out. > Clinton was accused of sexually harrassing >an employee. A pattern of engaging in sexual conduct with other employees >would be a highly relevant, it seems to me. Your opinion is worthless. >> and that >> is a necessary requirement for perjury charges. > >Actually the requirement is that the testimony be "material". This is a fact >issue to be decided by a jury, not by Clinton nor by you. Actually, it's a fact issue to be decided by a judge. And Judge Wright did decide it - and she decided it was not material and threw it all out. No prosecutor thought it was material either, and no charges were ever brought. Sorry, but those are the facts. >From a federal legal treatise, discussing the materiality requirement: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I deleted case cites and some irrelevant examples. But clearly, the Lewinsky >questions could have satisfied the requirement of materiality. So explain why no prosecutor agreed with you. >And by the way...where are all those self-righteous lefties who wanted to >hang Clarence Thomas for purportedly telling a dirty joke to an employee. >Clinton seduces a 21 year old intern, then commits perjury to hide it, then >lies to the American people, and all you lefties can say is "poor Bill"? He didn't seduce her. He let her blow him. It was HER idea. And I didn't give a crap about Thomas telling dirty jokes or watching porn or whatever. >> There is simply no way there ever would have been a conviction > >Well, the judges that I practice in front of would have put him *under* the >prison. So I'm curious as to what you base that claim on. The fact that no charges were ever even brought, and the long lists of prosecutors at the time who signed a petition saying that they would never bring charges in that case. And your lame insinuation that you are somehow a lawyer is laughable - there's no way I believe that anyone as dumb as you could gmake it through law school. >> so >> there was no way there would even be charges. It was ONLY the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >So you are not troubled by the President of the United States lying in a >deposition under oath? About a blow job? A consensual affair? Not much. I'm MUCH more troubled by a president who REPEATEDLY lies to the American people and to congress about IMPORTANT things and then starts a WAR based on those lies in which tens of thousands of people are killed and hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted and terrorists are recruited and trained in increasing numbers. But that doesn't seem o bug you at all. For you, it's all about a blow job. Jeeze... >>>He was disbarred by the US Supreme Court. > >> No he wasn't. Look it up and get back to me with a cite for that. > >Your ignorance bores me. A Yahoo search turned up 89,000 sites, but we can >start with http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35470,00.html . Research some more. He resigned his membership in the SC bar before the disbarment. It's as if you said Nixon had been impeached. That was not true, either. >>> The Arkansas Supreme Court >>>Committee on Professional Conduct initiated proceedings to disbar him as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Yeah, everyone knows that almost all attorneys are right wing zealots... All the Clinton-appointees recused themselves, leaving only the VRWC members on the committee. >I'll have to remember that defense if I ever have to defend the disbarment >of an attorney who lies under oath. "Madam Chairman, it is true that my [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >hamfisted foreign policy convinced a generation of Americans that Democrats >couldn't be trusted with national security in wartime. Wow, you spin so fast it makes all of us dizzy. >He completely destroyed the shrill, hysterical feminists by exposing their >utter hypocrisy. One particularly stupid feminist actually said that men >should get a free grope before it became harassment. Wow. And of course, he >has exposed the hypocrisy of so many other lefties who now whine about >"liars in the White House". I loved the guy. He sold you morons out AND YOU >DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT. Beautiful. How did you ever get into ROM, anyway? You & Tubbs are quite a pair. >>Hmmn. Someone should tell that to Martha and Scooter. > The circumstances of their cases are quite different. Yeah -- they aren't beloved by millions of hypocritical lefties. >>Under oath, here's some of his testimony: >>Q: Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky? >>A: No >>(Clinton Deposition in Jones case, pg 78, lines 4-6) >><shrug> >>Please explain to us how that is not a lie. > Because it was all dependent on the inquisitor's tortured and bullshit > definition of "sexual relations": Actually, here's the definition from the actual deposition exhibit (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/13/jones.v.clinton.docs/clinton/sexual.re lations.jpg): > Deposition Exhibit 1 defines "Sexual Relations" as when a person > knowingly engages in or causes "contact with the genitalia, anus, > groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent > to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person." Well, that's *one* of the definitions, but you left out the rather damning other definition: "A person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes --- ... 3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any other person." Of course, you have utterly misrepresented my quote -- Clinton was asked if he had an "extramarital affair" and he said "no". Later, he also denied having "sexual relations" So tell us how her giving him oral sex fails to constitute "Contact between the genitals or anus of [Clinton] and any other person." For that matter, tell us how his rather innovative use of a cigar fails to constitute "sexual relations" under your definition. And then, explain to us how these acts did not constitute an "extramarital affair". That term is undefined by the parties to the suit. Therefore, the rules of evidence require that the parties use the commonly understood definition. > Explain to us how, if it WAS a lie, it wasn't prosecuted as perjury. Even a moron of your caliber should recognize that not all criminal acts are prosecuted. >>The judge in the case ruled that the testimony was relevant and was it was >>permissible to ask him about it. > Before the deposition. Then, afterwards, she ruled it irrelevant and > threw it all out. I do not think this is what happened, but it has been awhile. I do recall that she considered citing Clinton for contempt for what *she* called dishonest and misleading answers. So please post a cite where I can verify your assertion. >> Clinton was accused of sexually harrassing >>an employee. A pattern of engaging in sexual conduct with other employees >>would be a highly relevant, it seems to me. > Your opinion is worthless. So you don't think that a pattern of seducing young employees is relevant to a case in which an employer is acused of sexually harrassing an employee? Or do you only think it is irrelevant when a Democrat is the defendant? Still curious, since so many lefties (before Clinton) claimed that *any* sexual relations between an employer and employee constituted sexual harrassment due to the imbalance of power. Of course, they suffered amnesia during the Great Clinton Bimbo Chase. But then, you lefties do seem uniquely vulnerable to amnesia... >>Actually the requirement is that the testimony be "material". This is a >>fact >>issue to be decided by a jury, not by Clinton nor by you. > Actually, it's a fact issue to be decided by a judge. Relevance is decided by the judge. Whether something is material is a jury issue. From the same treatise: "Following Gaudin [a 1995 case], the better practice is to allow the jury to decide the issue. Appellate courts that have addressed materiality in perjury cases recently have extended Gaudin to require jury determinations of materiality." > And Judge > Wright did decide it - and she decided it was not material and threw > it all out. Again, I'd like proof of your assertion. I don't think you're correct, but I could be mistaken. >>From a federal legal treatise, discussing the materiality requirement: >>"The false statement must be material to the proceedings. A false >>statement [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>Materiality is not negated merely because the tribunal did not believe the >>testimony or sought cumulative information." >>I deleted case cites and some irrelevant examples. But clearly, the >>Lewinsky >>questions could have satisfied the requirement of materiality. > So explain why no prosecutor agreed with you. Sadly, I lack the ability to read minds. And I also lack the arrogant certainty shown by so many lefties that whatever I *feel* is right. So I cannot answer your question. But it seems obvious to me that the inquiry could have been material to the case. >>And by the way...where are all those self-righteous lefties who wanted to >>hang Clarence Thomas for purportedly telling a dirty joke to an employee. >>Clinton seduces a 21 year old intern, then commits perjury to hide it, >>then >>lies to the American people, and all you lefties can say is "poor Bill"? > He didn't seduce her. He let her blow him. It was HER idea. Are you *sure* you aren't really a Republican just trying to make liberals look bad? > And I > didn't give a crap about Thomas telling dirty jokes or watching porn > or whatever. Sure. >>Well, the judges that I practice in front of would have put him *under* >>the >>prison. So I'm curious as to what you base that claim on. > The fact that no charges were ever even brought, and the long lists of > prosecutors at the time who signed a petition saying that they would > never bring charges in that case. Relevance? Even a dullard like you can imagine that there might be some folks who would back Clinton no matter what he did. Folks like *you* for instance. > And your lame insinuation that you are somehow a lawyer is laughable - > there's no way I believe that anyone as dumb as you could gmake it > through law school. <shrug> 'Tis true nonethless. In my state, pretending to be a licensed attorney is a crime. And for that matter, why would *anyone* falsely claim to be a lawyer? I mean, it isn't like we have hordes of super models after us or anything. >>So you are not troubled by the President of the United States lying in a >>deposition under oath? > About a blow job? A consensual affair? Not much. <shrug> So it's okay for a President to lie under oath if it's only about sex? > I'm MUCH more > troubled by a president who REPEATEDLY lies to the American people Please identify the specific lies you claim the President told. Then, explain how he could have fooled all those brilliant lefties in the Congress. And the numerous US intelligence agencies. And the intelligence agencies of Britain, France, etc. And also tell us how he managed to go back in time and trick all those Clintonistas into lying about poor Saddam. This I gotta hear. But before you start...you do understand that there is a difference between lying and being incorrect, right? For instance, a "lie" is a deliberate assertion that the speaker knows is false. Like when Clinton denied having an extramarital affair with Monica. Being incorrect is simply, uh, being incorrect. >>>>He was disbarred by the US Supreme Court. >>> No he wasn't. Look it up and get back to me with a cite for that. >>Your ignorance bores me. A Yahoo search turned up 89,000 sites, but we can >>start with http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35470,00.html . > Research some more. He resigned his membership in the SC bar before > the disbarment. It's as if you said Nixon had been impeached. That > was not true, either. Proof? >>Yeah, everyone knows that almost all attorneys are right wing zealots... > All the Clinton-appointees recused themselves, leaving only the VRWC > members on the committee. Proof? >>I'll have to remember that defense if I ever have to defend the disbarment >>of an attorney who lies under oath. "Madam Chairman, it is true that my >>client told a flat-out lie under oath. But he's not guilty of perjury and >>should not be disbarred because this bar association is a highly partisan >>committee doing politics not law..." >>Hmm. I just don't think they'll buy it. >>> Face it, you guys got spanked on that whole Clinton deal. >>To the contrary, I think Clinton was the greatest Republican president >>ever. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>Democrats >>couldn't be trusted with national security in wartime. > Wow, you spin so fast it makes all of us dizzy. So you agree that Clinton was the best Republican president ever? >>He completely destroyed the shrill, hysterical feminists by exposing their >>utter hypocrisy. One particularly stupid feminist actually said that men [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>YOU >>DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT. Beautiful. > How did you ever get into ROM, anyway? You & Tubbs are quite a pair. I have no idea what you're asking. But then, you are too stupid to recognize how badly Clinton sold you lefties out. So it shouldn't shock me that you are incoherent. --Ty > >> >> >> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:41:13 GMT, "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Busted again, liar. Write whatever your commissars tell you but you are just simply stuck on stupid. jt > "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> In any case, I can't wait to apply these laws to Democrats. Release the >> hounds! > How can one apply 'double standards' ? The dems think they should be > immune > to accountability. Well, they are in for a letdown. I believe that anti-Bush Democrats in the CIA and the DNC have been leaking a lot of classified information in violation of US laws. It will be entertaining to hear their indignation when *they* get prosecuted. --Ty >> "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >violation of US laws. It will be entertaining to hear their indignation when >*they* get prosecuted. Yeah - those republicans were all indignant about those leaks - who told the press about those super-secret CIA prisons around the world? They called for a bi-cameral investigation! Get to the bottom of this!! We MUST know!!! And then Trent Lott mentioned that he thought it was probably some republican senators or staffers who did the leaking. Now, of course, no more calls for bi-cameral investigations from the republicans. Fancy that. > >> "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Fancy that. If a Republican leaked a secret I want him dealt with just as I would anyone else. I don't apply double standards to anyone. jt -- Without the second amendment the first amendment means nil. www.townhall.com www.newsmax.com www.nranews.org >>Well, they are in for a letdown. I believe that anti-Bush Democrats in the >>CIA and the DNC have been leaking a lot of classified information in >>violation of US laws. It will be entertaining to hear their indignation >>when >>*they* get prosecuted. > Yeah - those republicans were all indignant about those leaks - who > told the press about those super-secret CIA prisons around the world? > They called for a bi-cameral investigation! Get to the bottom of > this!! We MUST know!!! > And then Trent Lott mentioned that he thought it was probably some > republican senators or staffers who did the leaking. Now, of course, > no more calls for bi-cameral investigations from the republicans. > Fancy that. Well, time will tell, won't it? In any case, lefties might want to review the concept of Unintended Consequences. --Ty > >>Well, they are in for a letdown. I believe that anti-Bush Democrats in the > >>CIA and the DNC have been leaking a lot of classified information in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > --Ty I think it will backfire on the dems and that may well be the way it is being orchestrated for the '06 election. jt -- Without the second amendment the first amendment means nil. www.townhall.com www.newsmax.com www.nranews.org > "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> Well, time will tell, won't it? In any case, lefties might want to review >> the concept of Unintended Consequences. > I think it will backfire on the dems and that may well be the way it is > being orchestrated for the '06 > election. <chuckle> I'm haven't historically been a conspiracy loon, but the Democrats are beginning to change my mind. There are so many Democratic "strategies" that sound like they were planted by the RNC. And I am ever more firmly convinced that Howard Dean and Michael Moore are secret Karl Rove operatives. It's hard to imagine how the Republicans could have stomped the Democrats so firmly in '04 without Dean and Moore's help. In fact, I am beginning to suspect that our own Mr. Slice might be a Republican. I can't believe that the real left is really *that* unarmed in this debate. --Ty > > "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > --Ty Oh, I can believe he is that dense. The brainwashing of the media and the liberal mentors in the schools have a deep impact on peoples' minds. Some can crawl out of it but the ones like you are debating didn't have the strength of mind to awaken themselves. I had intense training in the military during the Korean war on how to resist the commies |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message