 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / General / Aviation / September 2008Actual Quotes from OBAMA book
Actual Quotes from OBAMA book If the majority of America could get past our Marxist homosexual controlled media most Americans would never vote for the man This man wants to be our President and control our government. Pay close attention to the last comment, I was stunned. Below are a few lines from Obama's books in his own words: From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.' From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mothers race.' From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.' From Dreams of My Father:'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.' From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.' From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.' > Actual Quotes from OBAMA book <snip> NOT http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html When GW's not opining over Obama's black caucus, he likes to show his stupidity by parroting out BS without checking basic facts. >> Actual Quotes from OBAMA book > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > When GW's not opining over Obama's black caucus, he likes to show his > stupidity by parroting out BS without checking basic facts. I love It Some BS Left wing Marxist site using lawyer hyperbole to distort and twist what you read. Just like Clinton. "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" LOL Most smart people know lawyer word manipulation crap when they read it Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. (LEFT WING SOCIALIST BASTION) Of course the egg heads and Marxists will tell you WHAT you should READ All BS Obama is a fabricated wag the dog Marxist Icon formulated by the DNC and the sociopath Howard Dean We all know Obama is a left wing Marxist. You can't hide that MIKE Good Obama link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism >>> Actual Quotes from OBAMA book >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Some BS Left wing Marxist site using lawyer hyperbole to distort and twist > what you read. Actually, it's called reality, GW, although I can certainly understand how your functional anencephaly prevents you from grasping undisputable basic facts and drives you to repeat BS that's been debunked more times than you've paid for sex. Your hero, Cheney references factcheck also, so I guess that makes him a Marxist too, eh GW? But do go ahead and tell us again how things work in Stupidassholeville. I can always use the chuckle. >>> Actual Quotes from OBAMA book >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism I'm on the conservative/libertarian side but you just sound like a raving k00k. To far left or right and you sound like a looney. >>>> Actual Quotes from OBAMA book >>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I'm on the conservative/libertarian side but you just sound like a raving > k00k. To far left or right and you sound like a looney. Kinda like Comrade Obama huh?? >>>>> Actual Quotes from OBAMA book >>>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Kinda like Comrade Obama huh?? Yawn. > Just like Clinton. "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" LOL People have totally misinterpreted what he was saying here. He was actually speaking about HRC as he was addressing that comment to Ms. L. A little cryptic, but hey, I would have been, too! When you're in deep doodoo it don't matter whose doodoo you're standing in. > People have totally misinterpreted what he was saying here. He was > actually speaking about HRC as he was addressing that comment to Ms. L. > A little cryptic, but hey, I would have been, too! When you're in deep > doodoo it don't matter whose doodoo you're standing in. Notice the OT added in the subject line. It should have been included in this tread from the beginning. Now back to the thread. And that is exactly the kind of attitude that is the root of many of our problems, today. Avoid unpleasant consequences, at all costs. Cover your a.s. Look out for number one. The _honorable_ thing to do would have been tell the truth. The whole truth. Nothing but the truth. That _is_ part of the instructions, part of what we swear to, before giving testimony or evidence in a court of law, isn't it? That one famous (infamous?) quote does not hold to the spirit of the law. Far from it. That one line is why I condemn Clinton. I dislike his behavior. I dislike many things he did, and approved of, but this one line clearly shows what kind of man he is. A man without honor. A man that is willing to evade the truth, rather than face the consequences. A man that did not deserve to be in the high office he was in, representing the people of this land, representing the ideals that many have fought and died for. He may have had the law on his side, but he sure did not have honor on his side. He lost any respect I had ever had for him, instantly. He deserved far worse than what ever happened to him.  SignatureJim in NC > Notice the OT added in the subject line. It should have been included > in this tread from the beginning. The OP is a worn tread indeed. ;-) > And that is exactly the kind of attitude that is the root of many of > our problems, today. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The _honorable_ thing to do would have been tell the truth. The whole > truth. Nothing but the truth. You mean like Grover Cleveland did in response to the Halpin scandal? Well look what happened to him! "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" ... "Gone to the White House. Ha! Ha! Ha!" > The OP is a worn tread indeed. ;-) I guess I wanted to get the "H" out-a-there! <g> > You mean like Grover Cleveland did in response to the Halpin scandal? Well > look what happened to him! He is not alone in his "almost the whole truth" attitude. It seems to be far to prevalent among politicians. SignatureJim in NC >> People have totally misinterpreted what he was saying here. He was >> actually speaking about HRC as he was addressing that comment to Ms. L. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > He lost any respect I had ever had for him, instantly. He deserved far > worse than what ever happened to him. Please. I seriously doubt you had any respect for Clinton in the first place, so why pretend as much and then profess to remove such respect? Do you call that being "honorable"? Clinton mislead a court about a meritless civil case that was funded by his political enemies to begin with. So your definition of "honor" is to voluntarily give legal foder in a case that never should have seen the light of a courtroom to begin with? His biggest mistake was trying to mislead the public in the same manner, but in the end it was a private matter if he wanted to get an extra-marital hummer in the first place. Most Americans didn't really give a crap about it anyway as he had higher approval ratings than President Reagan ever did as the impeachment proceedings were going on in congress. Those that pretended to be offended by it never liked him in the first place, just like you. Several members of congress who led the charge against Clinton were cheating on their own wives at the time or later called Libby's actual perjury (during a federal criminal investigation no less) a "technicality". In the end the entire matter was a blight on American politics, and neither side ever took the high road. Furthermore, since when have we had an "honorable" President? Nixon? He was a tax cheat, dishonest to the core, and completely corrupt. Reagan? He never came clean once on Iran-Contra and even Goldwater never believed him on the matter. He also presided over one of the most corrupt administrations in history and when asked about it by the press pretended to be oblivious to it all. H.W. Bush? He was just as dirty on Iran-Contra and he pardoned all those who sandbagged the investigation to protect himself. He also pardoned a known terrorist for no other reason than to further the political career of his son. Bush the 2nd? No explanation needed there. So in more than 30 years the most "honorable" Presidents we've had are Ford and Carter, and both were mediocre Presidents at best. > Please. I seriously doubt you had any respect for Clinton in the first > place, so why pretend as much and then profess to remove such respect? You know what I feel about him, How??? Don't presume or assume to know my feelings about the man, or his accomplishments. You know what happens when you assume. Hint: There were things that he did while he was president that I felt were very good. What he did with that one statement I still feel were worse than all of the other presidents, even when you look at them with the worst possible slant. Does that give you an idea how I feel about that particular deception? No answer needed; I just wanted to let you know how I DO FEEL about this one thing. It wasn't the act, it was the lie, and most of all, where and how it was given. Another hint. Nothing you or anyone else can say, or do, or compare to others, will ever change my mind on this subject, so save your breath, unless you just want to see your words in writing. SignatureJim in NC >> Please. I seriously doubt you had any respect for Clinton in the first >> place, so why pretend as much and then profess to remove such respect? > > 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. > Don't presume or assume to know my feelings about the man, or his > accomplishments. You know what happens when you assume. My assumptions have a pretty good track record. I'm not going to pretend they are correct all of the time, but in your case I'm still convinced and your previous post only reinforces what I already suspected. > Hint: There were things that he did while he was president that I felt > were very good. So what? I could say the same about Nixon or any other president throughout history. One would have to be a universe away from the mainstream to say any president had no good accomplishments whatsoever throughout their term. > What he did with that one statement I still feel were worse than all of > the other presidents, even when you look at them with the worst possible > slant. Does that give you an idea how I feel about that particular > deception? No answer needed; I just wanted to let you know how I DO FEEL > about this one thing. It wasn't the act, it was the lie, and most of all, > where and how it was given. I will answer your question whether you feel it was needed or not. It gives an excellent idea about how you feel about that particular deception and it reinforces exactly what I've been saying. Everyone lies, and yes, that includes presidents. To say Clinton has the all time worse deception would be funny if it weren't so sad. It means you think deceiving the public about a hummer is worse than deceiving the public into a baseless war. > Another hint. Nothing you or anyone else can say, or do, or compare to > others, will ever change my mind on this subject, so save your breath, > unless you just want to see your words in writing. I could care less whether I change your mind or not. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Some are just more relevant than others. >> 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*? It doesn't bother you that a seated president then perjured himself by lying under oath? If that were a Senator -- or you -- punishment would be swift. Not only was the guy never punished, he instead wields great influence in our morally bankrupt political system. Worse, the Democrats still get all teary eyed about him. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. SignatureJay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 Ercoupe N94856 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" >>> You know what I feel about him, How??? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > used his power and influence to bop a cute (if slightly plump) little > intern in the Oval Office? 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. > 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"? In prison for what? Is sex illegal in your world? I don't know if you realize it or not, but scarlet letters went out of fashion quite some time ago. > What kind of standard is *that*? The kind that are applied equally to both sides. > It doesn't bother you that a seated president then perjured himself by > lying under oath? If that were a Senator -- or you -- punishment would be > swift. 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. > Not only was the guy never punished, he instead wields great influence in > our morally bankrupt political system. Worse, the Democrats still get all > teary eyed about him. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. 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. > There was no perjury. He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury. >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. > If you're > not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate > yourself before you comment. indeed. SignatureBob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) >> There was no perjury. > > He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury. No it's not. However your definition does demonstrate why you don't posses the knowledge to argue such points. >>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. >> If you're >> not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better educate >> yourself before you comment. > > indeed. Glad you agree. > >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Glad you agree. If only others would educate themselves... SignatureBob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) >> >> There was no perjury. >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > '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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 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. > > '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. Take your complant to the people who wrote the dictionary. SignatureBob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) >> > '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. > > Take your complant to the people who wrote the dictionary. You can search numerous dictionaries and most of them don't have all the required elements required to support a federal case for perjury which are: (1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the specific intent to deceive. That's the definition given by the USSC, which is the one that counts. Ken Starr never came close to meeting that burden which is why he never so much as attempted to indict Clinton for the crime of perjury. Giving misleading but factually correct answers is not a crime. Providing answers you believe are correct is not a crime. So no matter how much you wish Clinton would have been convicted, he wasn't even so much as indicted and for very good reason. Those are the facts. Accept them and get over it. > >> > 'The offense of willfulling telling an untruth in a court after > >> > having taken an oath or affirmation." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You can search numerous dictionaries and most of them don't have all the > required elements required to support a federal case for perjury which are: And that is why we are apparently talking past each other. I am not a lawyer and I am not concerned with what the law calls perjury. American-English defines perjury as telling a lie under oath. Clinton did lie under oath. That is a fact. Move on. SignatureBob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) >> >> > 'The offense of willfulling telling an untruth in a court after >> >> > having taken an oath or affirmation." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And that is why we are apparently talking past each other. I am not a > lawyer and I am not concerned with what the law calls perjury. Obviously, and that's my point. Thank you for agreeing. > Giving misleading > but factually correct answers is not a crime. Providing answers you believe > are correct is not a crime. There's something in the oath about telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. (Well, at least as much as the lawyers will let you get away with.) Only the legal profession could get away from the whole truth, and coming up with "misleading but factually correct". Deliberately misleading is lying, and every parent worth a toot knows to teach this to the kids. Clinton never grew up. Now, just to emulate Clinton and the definition of "is": Providing answers you believe are correct is not a crime, is true if you believe you are telling the whole truth. It might be crime if you twist the words of the question or the answer, such that you knowingly intend for the hearer of the answer to not get the answer to the question. For example: Mom: Did you throw your little brother into the lake? Big brother: No. But in his mind, he thinks: I threw him into the air over the lake. He fell into the lake of his own accord. Only a lawyer, which, come to remember, Clinton is. Or was. Or is again. Define "lawyer". >> Giving misleading >> but factually correct answers is not a crime. Providing answers you [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Only a lawyer, which, come to remember, Clinton is. Or was. Or is > again. Define "lawyer". 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. 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. 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. As the USSC is the supreme arbiter of the land, their opinions are what matters, not yours. > Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there. Trying to relate on your level Mikey Mouth. The best you can come up > with is YOU think Clinton committed perjury, which is clearly your > opinion. 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. Politics dumb a.s. It's be like asking you to roll over on Bertie. > 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. > > As the USSC is the supreme arbiter of the land, their opinions are what > matters, not yours. No dumb a.s, the opinion that ultimately counts is the voters. >> Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there. > > Trying to relate on your level Mikey Mouth. It wasn't your response to begin with, 12 yr old. Jeez you are one dumb $hit. Try all you want, but you can't relate on any level in this particular NG. >>> Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Try all you want, but you can't relate on any level in this particular NG. Did Bill teach you that one too, PVT Cross Post? >>>> Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Did Bill teach you that one too, PVT Cross Post? ...sez the 12 yr old village idiot. >>>> Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Did Bill teach you that one too, PVT Cross Post? I gave him a field promotion to Master Sgt Crosspoast last week, actually. Bertie >>> Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there. >> >> Trying to relate on your level Mikey Mouth. > > It wasn't your response to begin with, 12 yr old. Jeez you are one > dumb $hit. He's the best! Bertie > <websu...@cox.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > with any sort of reasonable explanation as to why he was never so much as > indicted for that crime. Unfortunately, such hair-splitting does occur. And not all things that should be get indicted. Politics on the defense is also at play here. Go to any good bookstore and browse the section on relationships. All of the books on sexual relations will include oral sex; the common definition of such activity clearly falls within the bounds of sex, as any boy or girl or parent knows. Or did, until the Clinton era, when kids started getting quoted as saying it wasn't sex, and Bill said so. ONLY A LAWYER could come up with a definition in which a BJ isn't sex. Only a lawyer could have a problem with the definition of 'is'. 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. 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. > 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. > > 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. > > <websu...@cox.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > 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? > Go to any good bookstore and browse the section on relationships. All > of the books on sexual relations will include oral sex; the common [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > isn't sex. Only a lawyer could have a problem with the definition of > 'is'. In this case, the "LAWYER" that supplied the definition (that was accepted by the court) worked for Paula Jones. You might want to do a bit of research on the actual facts of the case before you spew such nonsense. > 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. The Jones lawsuit was dismissed, by the way, and the settlement paid was a fraction of what it would have cost Clinton to defend an appeal. In the end, Paula Jones got nothing other than the notoriety that allowed her to pose nude for a men's magazine. Even Ann Coulter called her a fraud. A lawsuit is also not a prosecution of a crime. The disbarment is even more of a joke. 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). If that doesn't tell you how weak their case was, you are blind to everything except your own ideology. > 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. > > The question was whether Clinton committed the crime of perjury or not. > > The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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? > 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. >> 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. Feel the need to shoot someone Maxie? Bertie >> 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. >>> Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7 >>> year investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I thought you promised to stop being my groupie. That didn't last > long. It never does. Bless him. Bertie >>>> Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7 >>>> year investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bless him. His urges to make a complete idiot out of himself must be overwhelming. >>>>> Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7 >>>>> year investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > His urges to make a complete idiot out of himself must be overwhelming. Well, he is an Okie... Bertie >>> "Mike" <nospam@microsoft.com> wrote in news:6Wbvk.322$1a2.102 > @trnddc04: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Well, he is an Okie... That explains a lot. >>>> "Mike" <nospam@microsoft.com> wrote in news:6Wbvk.322$1a2.102 >> @trnddc04: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > That explains a lot. Mmmm hhmmmm. Bertie > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. > > > 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. They must be lawyers. Whatever happened to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? > > > As the USSC is the supreme arbiter of the land, their opinions are what > > > matters, not yours. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. 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. > > > > Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there. The best you can > > > > come [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. > 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. SignatureJay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 Ercoupe N94856 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" >> I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, Mike -- everyone DOESN'T lie. Only people like you -- the ones > who do the lying, and defend the liars -- think that "everyone" lies. Well, let's just narrow it down to you then.. Bertie Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:20:31 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip sang, "If I were a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, bloody, bloody, blub...", and then randomly typed out: >>> I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well, let's just narrow it down to you then.. Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever tell you that I've had sex ten thousand times? Signature________________________________________________________________________ Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18 TEH USENETS BULLIE http://www.runescape.com/ Join my RuneScape clan! http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle Trainer of PorchMonkey4Life http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/ Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008 Hammer of Thor, July 2008 "Not supporting me is equivalent to forfeiting your own rights." -- John D. Wentzky: Warrior For Your Freedumb! Message-ID: <33km2419sg6fnq3shtbatqa602eagfbskl@4ax.com> "You cognatatively challenged fool!" -- According to Agamemnon, Stephen Wilson is, apparently, highly ignorant about cognates, and so is anyone who dares to disagree with him, in Message-ID: <Jvidnfyewe883sjVnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk> "Is it still necrophilia if I'm conscious?" -- Owen Harper, "Dead Man Walking", Torchwood (20/207) The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton, ye hasty-witted fool, dissembling harlot, thou are false in all, ye expanded: > Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:20:31 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip sang, > "If [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever tell > you that I've had sex ten thousand times? I take it that, unlike Bill Clinton, you define giving felatio as having sex. <stands ground> SignatureHammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:14:51 -1200, Kadaitcha Man frothed and foamed: > The Demon of Mockery & Silliness, Chas. E. Pemberton, ye hasty-witted > fool, dissembling harlot, thou are false in all, ye expanded: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > <stands ground> I'll even go so far as to define receiving it thusly. ;-{P} Signature________________________________________________________________________ Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5 The God of Odd Statements Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change. Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8 George Pickett Memorial Award nominee <wfh_jr@hotmail.com> on outing personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines: "Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it. You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way. You're so f.cking scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you. "Meanwhile you are the ugliest pigfucker in the universe. You are the coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an a.shole you are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear. "What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat a.shole." -- in MID: <1156587081.123977.43800@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Lola Stonewall Riot, ye slovenly one that serves a bad woman, an admirable evasion of whore master man, to lay thy goatish disposition to the charge of a star, ye chirruped: > Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:14:51 -1200, Kadaitcha Man frothed > and [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > ;-{P} f.ck me dead. Lay me down, roll me over and do it again. At an average of 2-5ml per ejaculation, you've swallowed between 20 and 50 litres of the stuff. No wonder you have a pallid complexion. <hobbles off, laughing> SignatureHammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk > Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:20:31 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip sang, > "If I were a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Actually, everyone lies about sex, anyway. Except me. Did I ever tell > you that I've had sex ten thousand times? And I believe you! Bertie >> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:20:31 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip sang, >> "If I were a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > And I believe you! Too bad. I lied. Signature________________________________________________________________________ Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Chung Convict #28; Usenet Ruiner #5 Demon Lord of Confusion; Official Chung Demon; Top a.shole #3 Superfaggot; Wingnut's #1 World Class Coward (next to the French) COOSN-029-06-71069; Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Lits Slut #16 Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4 AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2; AUK Hate Machine Cog #19 Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18 The posting nym is best removed from my posting address if your goal is to speak with me in private. Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.* "Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support" Join my RuneScape clan! http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel "A dog in the video I watched f.cked a human woman. The dog consented to it and the woman consented to it. That is like one gay man consenting to having sex with another. Do you approve of it?" -- Agamemnon watches bestiality porn and compares it to gay sex. Message-ID: <A7adnV1ksaSyY_LbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk> "I know how you special busboys are. You're crazy." -- John "special busboy" Wentzky, in Message-ID: <HMb3k.2413$bh5.2204@bignews4.bellsouth.net> "Roe V Wade has zero bearing on my existence other than it affects it adversely." -- Johnny Wentzky never had much truck with "logic". Message-ID: <V6xNe.27650$XM3.20042@bignews5.bellsouth.net> "F!ck moderation, free speech is a masculinist proverb and that's what feminist manvagina's like yourself." -- connor_a@hotmail.com posted before finishing a thought, in MID: <1158480805.528028.220320@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> "Fredbot == SameAsB4 == TGOOS "You are stalking me, even after I thrashed ya." -- PorchMonkey4Life, a veritable combination of Sherlock Holmes and Doc Savage for the 21st Century. No, really. Would I lie? MID: <zaUqh.2972$E35.415@trnddc02> "He unleashes a fecal explosion he time he posts. He uses so many nyms because he gets beaten so easily and so convincingly in flame wars and tries to hide behind nyms in the hopes of getting a fresh start. To bad for him that his lameness keep shining through like a beacon for all tards (e.g., SameAs$B4, Demon Spawn, Barbara's Pus$y, FredBot, TGOOS, ......, etc)" -- Monkey-man identifies <jitter> as me, among others, in broken English, in MID: <Z_Xqh.3167$E35.215@trnddc02> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle Trainer of the above k00k http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/ Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008 Hammer of Thor, July 2008 "Q: What do you call someone in the White House who is honest, caring, and well-read? A: A tourist." -- Anonymous "It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine.. 'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur reached new heights, in Message-ID: <Xns98355D29419B9HHI2948AJD832@69.28.186.121> "Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H. L. Mencken "Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other part of the so-called 'War on Terror.' "If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them up." -- William Rivers Pitt "It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator." -- Frank Morales http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e&fark "Right you are correct. Someone hooked me. I do believe in building relationships. That is what Christians are required to do. I am amoral. I am sure you know what that means. So are Scorpios. I am being 'protected' by the Formosa Rule because of my 'mental illness'. I am not targeting 'teh Mop Jockey'. You are and you are using me as a bait. Please stop. I have my own fish to reel in. Leave me alone. It is my hope that I will be able to catch a fish and reel it in for you. Once my retired bishop thought I was fishing for him and he took the bait, alas it wasn't me and that spelled the demise of our relationship. Have a little bit more faith in me. An Eastern Orthodox bishop thought I was fishing for him and willingly, proudly and defiantly took the bait on public record, and it wasn't even me. Give me a break." -- Atlanta Olympiada "Erica" Kane yammered in Message-ID: <ochc3.ag0.17.1@news.alt.net> "It does to a certain extant physically and theoretically it holds even into the quantum but there observational confirmation is limited or non existent. That's the problem and the major stumbling block to field unification. For Dr. Einstein held out that a physical based field theory should be sought out and not left to quantum uncertainty of how the universe primly base works. Man made coordinate systems are fine without knowing from where or what is the base essence of what the space as deduced field is composed of, but not totally satisfactory. Anomalies keep space cropping up and scientists have to keep adjusting for these unexpected events. It's like a blind man that has memorized his physical surroundings to a point he feels very comfortable until that one new or unexpected event pops up and he's lost and fumbling." -- nightbat, in one of his more lucid moments. Message-ID: <b27b0$45ed14a7$46e3a646$6618@COMTECK.COM> >>> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:20:31 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip sang, >>> "If I were a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Too bad. I lied. I feel so foolish. Bertie >>>> Hail Eris! On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:20:31 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip sang, >>>> "If I were a Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I feel so foolish. Well, you should. It's actually 12,000. Signature________________________________________________________________________ Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Chung Convict #28; Usenet Ruiner #5 Demon Lord of Confusion; Official Chung Demon; Top a.shole #3 Superfaggot; Wingnut's #1 World Class Coward (next to the French) COOSN-029-06-71069; Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Lits Slut #16 Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4 AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2; AUK Hate Machine Cog #19 Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18 The posting nym is best removed from my posting address if your goal is to speak with me in private. Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.* "Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support" Join my RuneScape clan! http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel "A dog in the video I watched f.cked a human woman. The dog consented to it and the woman consented to it. That is like one gay man consenting to having sex with another. Do you approve of it?" -- Agamemnon watches bestiality porn and compares it to gay sex. Message-ID: <A7adnV1ksaSyY_LbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk> "I know how you special busboys are. You're crazy." -- John "special busboy" Wentzky, in Message-ID: <HMb3k.2413$bh5.2204@bignews4.bellsouth.net> "Roe V Wade has zero bearing on my existence other than it affects it adversely." -- Johnny Wentzky never had much truck with "logic". Message-ID: <V6xNe.27650$XM3.20042@bignews5.bellsouth.net> "F!ck moderation, free speech is a masculinist proverb and that's what feminist manvagina's like yourself." -- connor_a@hotmail.com posted before finishing a thought, in MID: <1158480805.528028.220320@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> "Fredbot == SameAsB4 == TGOOS "You are stalking me, even after I thrashed ya." -- PorchMonkey4Life, a veritable combination of Sherlock Holmes and Doc Savage for the 21st Century. No, really. Would I lie? MID: <zaUqh.2972$E35.415@trnddc02> "He unleashes a fecal explosion he time he posts. He uses so many nyms because he gets beaten so easily and so convincingly in flame wars and tries to hide behind nyms in the hopes of getting a fresh start. To bad for him that his lameness keep shining through like a beacon for all tards (e.g., SameAs$B4, Demon Spawn, Barbara's Pus$y, FredBot, TGOOS, ......, etc)" -- Monkey-man identifies <jitter> as me, among others, in broken English, in MID: <Z_Xqh.3167$E35.215@trnddc02> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle Trainer of the above k00k http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/ Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008 Hammer of Thor, July 2008 "Q: What do you call someone in the White House who is honest, caring, and well-read? A: A tourist." -- Anonymous "It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine.. 'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur reached new heights, in Message-ID: <Xns98355D29419B9HHI2948AJD832@69.28.186.121> "Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H. L. Mencken "Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other part of the so-called 'War on Terror.' "If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them up." -- William Rivers Pitt "It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator." -- Frank Morales http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e&fark "Right you are correct. Someone hooked me. I do believe in building relationships. That is what Christians are required to do. I am amoral. I am sure you know what that means. So are Scorpios. I am being 'protected' by the Formosa Rule because of my 'mental illness'. I am not targeting 'teh Mop Jockey'. You are and you are using me as a bait. Please stop. I have my own fish to reel in. Leave me alone. It is my hope that I will be able to catch a fish and reel it in for you. Once my retired bishop thought I was fishing for him and he took the bait, alas it wasn't me and that spelled the demise of our relationship. Have a little bit more faith in me. An Eastern Orthodox bishop thought I was fishing for him and willingly, proudly and defiantly took the bait on public record, and it wasn't even me. Give me a break." -- Atlanta Olympiada "Erica" Kane yammered in Message-ID: <ochc3.ag0.17.1@news.alt.net> "It does to a certain extant physically and theoretically it holds even into the quantum but there observational confirmation is limited or non existent. That's the problem and the major stumbling block to field unification. For Dr. Einstein held out that a physical based field theory should be sought out and not left to quantum uncertainty of how the universe primly base works. Man made coordinate systems are fine without knowing from where or what is the base essence of what the space as deduced field is composed of, but not totally satisfactory. Anomalies keep space cropping up and scientists have to keep adjusting for these unexpected events. It's like a blind man that has memorized his physical surroundings to a point he feels very comfortable until that one new or unexpected event pops up and he's lost and fumbling." -- nightbat, in one of his more lucid moments. Message-ID: <b27b0$45ed14a7$46e3a646$6618@COMTECK.COM> > the ones who do the lying, and defend the liars -- That would include Sarah Palin and the Republicans. After she got up and re-told her big, fat, stinking heater of a lie in her speech last night, I didn't hear any Repugnicans standing up for truth and light. http://dailyhowler.com/dh090108.shtml >> I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, Mike -- everyone DOESN'T lie. Only people like you -- the ones who do > the lying, and defend the liars -- think that "everyone" lies. Amazing when Gertie or one of his socks come up with stuff like this, and no one seems to notice. >>> I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Amazing when Gertie or one of his socks come up with stuff like this, > and no one seems to notice. Really? when did I come up with stuff like this, wannabe boi? Bertie >>> I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Amazing when Gertie or one of his socks come up with stuff like this, > and no one seems to notice. Really? Do quote a bit of material that's "stuff like this", Maxie. go on. Bertie >> I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, Mike -- everyone DOESN'T lie. Only people like you -- the ones who do > the lying, and defend the liars -- think that "everyone" lies. The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the nonsense about your "Rogue's gallery" in an obvious attempt to gain sympathy and then when it had the opposite effect you claimed you were just pulling everyone's chain. Clearly you are a very duplicitous person, Jay. It's clearly apparent to even the most casual observer, regardless of whether you admit it. The true essence of Jay is hypocrisy, which is loathed more by society than lying. > The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie > right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The true essence of Jay is hypocrisy, which is loathed more by society > than lying. A mouth full of BS, from a first class bull shatter. A+, Mikey Mouth. >> The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie >> right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > A mouth full of BS, from a first class bull shatter. Really? Got a cite for thst fjukkktard? Bertie >>> The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie >>> right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Bertie Sure dumb a.s, just read every post here that says Mikey Mouth. >>>> The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie >>>> right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Sure dumb a.s, just read every post here that says Mikey Mouth. That's not a cite, fjukkkkkkkkktard.... Bertie >> Sure dumb a.s, just read every post here that says Mikey Mouth. > > That's not a cite, fjukkkkkkkkktard.... > > Bertie Sure it is dumb a.s. What do want, an individual link to each of his bull sh.t post in google? Or have you already forgotten what we were talking about? >>> Sure dumb a.s, just read every post here that says Mikey Mouth. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sure it is dumb a.s. What do want, an individual link to each of his > bull sh.t post in google? Just one would be a start, liar boi. > Or have you already forgotten what we were talking about? Nope. Bertie >>>> The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie >>>> right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Sure dumb a.s, just read every post here that says Mikey Mouth. So you can't provide the cite. Thought so. >> The biggest lie at all is to say you've never lied. In fact, you lie >> right here in this NG and did so quite recently when you posted the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > A mouth full of BS, from a first class bull shatter. ...sez the village idiot BS monger. The only time you didn't lie was when you admitted to being a pinhead, and your truthfulness was purely by accident. >>> I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The true essence of Jay is hypocrisy, which is loathed more by society > than lying. Unless you're one of the party faithful, of course. Bertie >>>> I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Unless you're one of the party faithful, of course. That's simply party hypocrisy, which is quite common, but Jay's particular version runs a bit deeper. Speaking of party hypocrisy, this one will drive you to tears: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5XVTzvT-TA >>>>> I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > That's simply party hypocrisy, which is quite common, but Jay's > particular version runs a bit deeper. Well, he#s had a lot of practice. Mostly on his-self.. > Speaking of party hypocrisy, this one will drive you to tears: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5XVTzvT-TA Ooow! Cynicism! Hadn't had my MDA, thanks. Bertie > 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. That's the best joke of the day! You should be a guest on Leno. Or a witness for Clinton. Lawyers get paid to win the case for their client, by any means possible. They no longer have any obligation to present the truth, the whole truth, or anything like the truth. Prior to going to court, they will say, do, or threaten anything to get the opposition to back down. Once in court, they will stretch, twist, or pervert the truth, or come up with any alternative explanation OTHER than the truth. Our courts are not about the truth any more (if ever), they are mainly about presentation and obfuscation. As evidence, I present both the OJ trials, and the Clinton proceedings. > 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. Do you have any evidence of anyone who got BJs in the oval office, other than WJC? > > > > 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? > 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. Quite a number of "friends of Bill" were convicted. > > > In this case, the "LAWYER" that supplied the definition (that was > > > accepted [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the court. That is a fact regardless of any semantic nonsense you want to > allege. A person with common sense would realize that it was all the lawyers and the courts who haggled over definitions. We the ordinary people pretty much know the definitions of "is" and "sex". > Really? The Jones lawsuit and the independent counsel investigation were > going full swing years before the Clinton deposition. BINGO! See how he dragged all this stuff out? Had he behaved, or not dragged it all out with his lies, the investigations never would have proceeded to the bimbo eruptions and his immature antics in the oral office. > I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies. No excuse. And most get caught and pay the price and learn their lesson. > If making misleading > statements Lying. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message