PDA

View Full Version : He's making a list an' checking it twice, ..



wolfdancer
12-14-2006, 09:25 AM
trying to figger out what's naughty or nice.....
Since the Ad Hoc committee here, has not delineated what may or may not be discussed....it seems it has to be a trial and error task. So far, I have placed politics on the not politically correct roster, but the digital cameras thread had little controversy, so that's on the approved list.
I'm not the only one making up lists....
Ashcroft announced a list of 100,000 Americans...potential terrorists, to be made available to law enforcement nationwide.
web page (http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Bottoms/bottoms15.html)

And the friendly neighborhood watch groups will receive more Fed funding with the hope of doubling their numbers.
The Bush administration also released a 24-page "Citizens' Preparedness Guide" that includes tips on boarding airplanes and handling suspicious mail. The pamphlet urges citizens to call the FBI if they overhear talk of a terrorist plot or witness "a pattern of suspicious activity."
Colette Marchesini-Pollock, who helps run an Orange Hat patrol group on Capitol Hill, said her group was already attuned to picking out suspicious people and vehicles.

"If we see a Ryder truck . . . and we know nobody's moving in . . . somebody would call it in" to police, Marchesini-Pollock said.
It's kind of a double-edged sword...trading security for being spied on by your neighbors. Worked well though in Nazi Germany.
And security at our airports is being tightened up even further:
Alert airline and security personnel prevented this potential terrorist from boarding a flight.
web page (http://www.holtuncensored.com/members/column275.html)
Perhaps they thought he was going to beat the crew into submission with the book?
I'm sure Gayle and Q are on some "watch" list here,about to be turned into RNP headquarters. AND, after only a few posts..I'm getting suspicious about SONoma

Gayle in MD
12-14-2006, 09:38 AM
Like Dick, I will stand and write! What is killing our democracy, is apathy. Apathy presents the greatest risk to America. Especially now.

BTW...here's what the Clinton era Republicans thought about impeachment...

The Republican Representative from Illinois, Henry Hyde, who had been the chair of the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton said: "We fulfilled our oath of office to discharge our duty according to the Constitution and when elected officials do that, democracy works." Hyde also intoned as the final inquiry into Clinton's affairs commenced: "Have you seen Auschwitz?

Do you see what happens when the rule of law doesn't prevail? Lying poisons justice." Hyde also concluded at the end of Clinton's impeachment trial: "I wonder if, after this culture war is over, this one we are engaged in, an America will survive that is worth fighting for to defend."

The Republican Representative from Wisconsin, James Sensenbrenner, Jr., who most recently chaired the House Judiciary Committee in the Republican-dominated Congress, and will now be its ranking member, said of the necessity of impeaching President Clinton: "What's at stake here is the rule of law. Even the president of the United States has no right to break the law. If the House votes down this inquiry . . . nothing will happen. The result will be a return to the imperial presidency of the Nixon era, where the White House felt the laws did not apply to them, since they never would be punished. That would be a national tragedy of immense consequences."


Yet, complete incompetence which causes the deaths and destruction to hundreds a month, sometimes more than hundreds, and lying to all of us, both before, and during this entire fiasco, doesn't meet the standards for impeachment? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
12-14-2006, 10:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Do you see what happens when the rule of law doesn't prevail? Lying poisons justice."


The Republican Representative from Wisconsin, James Sensenbrenner, Jr., who most recently chaired the House Judiciary Committee in the Republican-dominated Congress, and will now be its ranking member, said of the necessity of impeaching President Clinton: "What's at stake here is the rule of law. Even the president of the United States has no right to break the law. If the House votes down this inquiry . . . nothing will happen. The result will be a return to the imperial presidency of the Nixon era, where the White House felt the laws did not apply to them, since they never would be punished. That would be a national tragedy of immense consequences."


Yet, complete incompetence which causes the deaths and destruction to hundreds a month, sometimes more than hundreds, and lying to all of us, both before, and during this entire fiasco, doesn't meet the standards for impeachment? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle...Read what you posted. The comment that if Clinton can get away with lying under oath, then we set a precedent for future presidents to do the same. Perhaps if we had stuck to the Rule of Law theory in dealing with BC, then the current administration might not have been as quick to take some of the actions they have taken. BC showed everyone you can lie and break the law and it's ok if it's for a good reason (covering up an affair is a good reason). You and others have argued that it is a matter of degree, ie, what BC did wasn't as bad as what GW has done. What it comes down to is a question of how much lying and law breaking is too much. It's pretty simple to me. If ever there was a case for zero tolerence, it should be in Washington.
Steve

S0Noma
12-14-2006, 10:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If ever there was a case for zero tolerence, it should be in Washington.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

If we instituted zero tolerance in Washington the place would be a ghost town.

wolfdancer
12-14-2006, 10:43 AM
I for one, was surprised that the Clinton/Lewinski affair, didn't spell the end of Western civilization....thank God that the right stepped in and exposed this before any further damage could be done.
AND they had to refer back to the imperial Presidency of the Nixon era to justify the impeachment???? How did they skip over the Reagan era, with the Iran/Contra deal, clearly over riding the mandate of Congress???
Too bad Bill didn't issue himself a pardon....then he could have shared a few more Cuban cigars before he left office.
Odd, isn't it,the total unconcern now, over any of Bush's lies. No matter how you look at it...this war can be traced back to one man, GWB...with Cheney whispering in one ear, and God in the other.
I'm beginning to hear voices myself......but I think it's just the neighborhood watch group tapping my phone, and letting me know they are doing it.

wolfdancer
12-14-2006, 10:54 AM
Steve, I'll never figure out how you can compare lying about an affair between two consenting adults, is on an equal basis with GWB's tall tales. I still say what Bill did in bed, or even had done under the oval office, or who he did it with...was no f***g , pun intended, business of Congress. Especially when they lacked similar concern about the predatory practices of one of their own, until they were forced to deal with it.
Personally, I think Reagan, George the first, and now Minnie Me should have been impeached....

Gayle in MD
12-14-2006, 12:01 PM
Steve,
I'm not sure what you are saying in your last sentence..."If ever there was a case for zero tolerance it should be in Washington."

And, in fact, not to be nasty, or anything, but I'm having a hard time understanding your point. Only the last paragraph was written by me, the rest is what was spoken about Clinton, by republicans.

Clinton didn't get away with anything, btw, he was impeached, and found not guilty of a crime that rises to the level of impeachment.

If you've done any reading at all, then you are, I'm sure, quite aware of all the lies we've been told by Bush. It's almost a weekly occurance. Surely, you don't deny that he has lied to us over and over, about the war, do you? Surely you know that he has broken many laws. That people have died because of it. That people are dying daily because of it. Surely, you're not suggesting that a gentleman's lie, about a little hanky panky, is comparable to George Bush's many many lies to the American people, about this war, and many other lies, about his other law breaking, are you???

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
12-14-2006, 12:45 PM
Gayle,
My point was simply that there shouldn't be an acceptable degree in lies. A lie is a lie. A lie about an affair under oath is just as bad as a lie about anything else. When we start saying some lies are ok (Which we did with Bill), then everything becomes an issue of someone's perception of what is acceptable.

It's like the old joke. The guy asks a girl if she would sleep with him for $20million and she says "of course". Then he asks if she would sleep with him for $20 and her response is "What kind of girl do you think I am???" He answers, "We've already established that, now we are negotiating a price!"
Steve

Gayle in MD
12-14-2006, 04:38 PM
OMG, Steve...I surely do not think that Clinton should ever have been asked, in the first place. No one asked Roosevelt, or Bush Sr., or Kennedy, or Eisenhower, or who knows how many others.

If you think that it is the same thing when a president lies about his private sex life, as it is when a president lies about war, breaking the law, outing CIA agents, his intention to change the Secretary of State in war time, I could go on and on, but these are lies against the country, the Constitution, and the people of our country. How can you possibly think there is no difference?

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
12-14-2006, 07:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> How can you possibly think there is no difference?

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Perhaps because my parents taught me that a lie is a lie...big, little, for whatever reason. And a lie under oath is a criminal act. Is it that hard to comprehend???
Steve

DickLeonard
12-15-2006, 07:24 AM
Pooltchr What man in his right mind would admit to having sex with someone besides his wife. That lie is a free lie in my Book. I will have to check the Bible to see if a BJ is a sexual act. Probably any sex act has to be for pro-creation or it is deviant and not a sex act.

I think Bill had the Chapter and Verse, when he said I never had sex with that Women. Of course I would have used Ronald Reagan's stock answer I Don't Remember. I do think lying us into War is a far greater Sin. It brings into play a whole host of sins. Thou shall not Kill,Steal,Lying, bring false witness against thy neighbor[Iraq]. So how can anybody compare the two is beyond my Liberal Thinking.####

eg8r
12-15-2006, 10:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Pooltchr What man in his right mind would admit to having sex with someone besides his wife. <hr /></blockquote> A cheap dishonest piece of trash. If you have gone so far as to cheat on your wife you really are not a man in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
I do think lying us into War is a far greater Sin. <hr /></blockquote> There are only two types of sin, the first is the easiest, anything you do that is against the Word of God. The second is called the "Ultimate Sin" which is when you are a Christian and decide to walk away from your belief. Other than that one peculiar instance, a sin is a sin is a sin. There is no ranking.

eg8r

eg8r
12-15-2006, 10:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Steve, I'll never figure out how you can compare lying about an affair between two consenting adults <hr /></blockquote> What you are missing is not the fact that Bill easily just lied to save his butt with his wife. The real issue is that he had such complete disregard for our Justice system that he lied under oath. If our President cannot tell the truth under oath, for such a non-US threatening situation, what else do you think he would lie about? The man lied under oath about a simple affair, don't you think it was just as easy for him to lie about his relationship with the Chinese?

If we were to take the logic of the left to heart then you would think W would get some sympathy for his "lies". At least his lies were about something important like the terrorists flying planes in the WTC (and possibly planning more), not a lie about some sleazy affair.

The issue is not the affair by itself, it is the fact that Clinton lied while under oath. You all strongly believe W has lied about much worse, if such is true then impeach the man he would have deserved it.

eg8r

wolfdancer
12-15-2006, 11:04 AM
Ed, if that's what you choose to believe, as does Steve..I won't try to argue the point. I'd guess though, in a room full of 100 people....neither of you could sell that version to more then 3 or 4 others.
We've all been mistaken, thinking you guys are raising up Clinton's lie to the level of GWB's many lies, when all the time, you've just been trying to reduce the measure of GWB's, to compare them with the "no harm, no foul.. a gentleman never tells" lie of Bill.
What if congress had asked Bill if he had ever engaged in the practice of onanism, as a teenager? Did they have that right, and could be have been impeached for lying? Didn't they have the right to inquire about any sex outside of the Holy bonds of marriage, or not for the purpose of procreation?
What was the crime they were investigating anyway? Adultery?
And if he had replied "Yes"...would they then have wanted to hear all the intimate details, maybe even hoping for a Pamela/Tommy Lee type tape to watch?
That particular witch hunt was designed by the Republicans, for only one purpose....
And if you think the 100 mil wasted on investigating that was your tax dollars well spent...how can anyone argue with that logic?

Gayle in MD
12-15-2006, 12:07 PM
Are you saying that you don't think that George Bush lied about this war???? It is a felony, to lie to the Congress and the Senate, FYI, about war. are you saying he didn't lie about breaking our laws by spying on us? WMD's? The supposed link between SH and bin Laden? The supposed existance of a threat from Saddam? The true opinion of our intelligence experts?

PAHLEEEEEZE.

It would be nice if we could impeach him, however, his lies have put not only our country, but the entire world, into a trick bag that we cannot get out of. In fact, Bush's lies, have destroyed fifty years of American high intention, fifty years of peace accords, international agreements, commited allies, arms agreements, our former humanitarian philosophy, and the value of our word, as Americans, not to mention, the loss of respect all over the world, and the near demise of our Constitution, and Congressional oversight. No single man in history, when all is said and done, will have caused the death and destruction that your hero George Bush, AND his Father, have caused, with the great help of Ronald Reagan's sneaky arms deals. And every ignorant neocon who pushed for a showdown in the middle east since the early nineties, has blood on their hands as well.

Why is it that the same people who buy into the religious BS, basically gossip, spread from one power seeking f'd-up man to another, are the same people who believe everything that comes out of George Bush's mouth? Organized religion, and your little rules for what is a sin, and what isn't, is at the core of everything horrible that is happening in the world right now. Wake UP!!!

Clinton lied. No question. He lied about his personal, private sex life, and it was no body's business, but his, and his families. It was the greasy little beady eyed, perverted voyerism of girly men like Kenneth Starr, Newt Gingrich, O'Reily, Limbaugh, and the rest, who hindered everything we SHOULD have had our attention on fully, during the Nineties, who helped put us right where we are right now. It was the entire elitist neocon movement, along with the religious right, that clouded and diluted urgent international issues of utmost importance, with non issues, private issues, Constitutionally gauranteed issues, and took the Nations attention away from everything to which we should have been attending. Anybody who would compare Clinton's lie, to the lies told by George Bush, isn't playing with a full deck! Thousands are dead, because of George Bush's lies. Thousands more, because of his incompetence. And hundreds of thousands more, even than those, because of all the screwed up people in this world, who are trying to stuff their religious beliefs down the throats of all the rest of us, and contaminate our entire legal system in a sick process of trying to justify their little rule book for what is and isn't a sin.

Bush's lies are ok, because they're about something important, HA HA HA HA.... So then, I guess it figures, if you lie when your girlfriend ask you if her fat a$$ looks fat in her too tight dress, it's worse, or just as bad, as if you lie to the driver of a bus load of people about the fact that the bridge is washed out on a foggy night.

Typical Republican thinking....

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
12-15-2006, 02:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that you don't think that George Bush lied about this war???? <hr /></blockquote> I think he was an opportunist. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
It is a felony, to lie to the Congress and the Senate, FYI, about war. <hr /></blockquote> I strongly believe if he committed a "real felony" the libs would have done more about it. It is obvious that nothing you post is ever to the extreme that you make it to be.

[ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if we could impeach him, however, his lies have put not only our country, but the entire world, into a trick bag that we cannot get out of. <hr /></blockquote> Nothing you said after the word "however" has anything to do with why the Dems are not moving for impeachment. The fact of the matter is that while they were in minority they got on their soapboxes and ranted but now that they are going to be in the majority they have backed down. The reason I believe, is that nothing is as extreme as you or they have purported and now that they have the ability to do something they don't want to fall on their faces. They (including you) blow everything out of proportion and that is why they never follow through with anything. Pelosi about peed herself wanting to impeach W but now she has backed off.

[ QUOTE ]
No single man in history, when all is said and done, will have caused the death and destruction that your hero George Bush <hr /></blockquote> I am surprised to see you are a fortune teller.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that the same people who buy into the religious BS, basically gossip, spread from one power seeking f'd-up man to another, are the same people who believe everything that comes out of George Bush's mouth? <hr /></blockquote> Is that a question? I don't understand what you are asking? For all have sinned...

[ QUOTE ]
Wake UP!!!
<hr /></blockquote> Who is asleep in the afternoon? I have been up since 5 AM.


[ QUOTE ]
Clinton lied. No question. He lied about his personal, private sex life, and it was no body's business, but his, and his families. <hr /></blockquote> You really don't get it. Oh yeah, I think it was Monica's business but you don't care about her, she was the one that brought your hero to his knees and exposed him for the pitiful excuse of a husband he really is.

[ QUOTE ]
It was the greasy little beady eyed, perverted voyerism of girly men like Kenneth Starr, Newt Gingrich, O'Reily, Limbaugh, and the rest <hr /></blockquote> Lets be honest, you don't think Kerry is a girly man. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif What a laugh.

[ QUOTE ]
along with the religious right, <hr /></blockquote> Every time you post this I think about all the religious libs that you alienate. There were millions of religious dems that voted for W but you just cannot accept the fact that it happened.

[ QUOTE ]
Thousands are dead, because of George Bush's lies. <hr /></blockquote> Including all those Al Qaeda leaders, Saddam's children, and soon Saddam will follow.

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody who would compare Clinton's lie, to the lies told by George Bush <hr /></blockquote> Only you guys were doing the comparing. Every time his impeachment is brought up you jump at the chance to compare him to W.

[ QUOTE ]
So then, I guess it figures, if you lie when your girlfriend ask you if her fat a$$ looks fat in her too tight dress <hr /></blockquote> You know me well enough by now to know that I will state it like it is. If someone does not look good in what they are wearing, I tell them. It gets me in hot water, but hey, is it my fault you are looking for someone to lie to you because you wanted that extra piece of cake and now you don't fit in the dress? I don't ask anyone how I look because I already know. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

eg8r
12-15-2006, 02:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, if that's what you choose to believe, as does Steve..I won't try to argue the point. I'd guess though, in a room full of 100 people....neither of you could sell that version to more then 3 or 4 others. <hr /></blockquote> You see, the thing about all this is that it does not matter if I can sell it or not. It is my opinion and I don't need a bunch of people slapping my back saying "atta boy". I don't have a desire to sway anyone's opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
What if congress had asked Bill if he had ever engaged in the practice of onanism, as a teenager? Did they have that right, and could be have been impeached for lying? Didn't they have the right to inquire about any sex outside of the Holy bonds of marriage, or not for the purpose of procreation?
What was the crime they were investigating anyway? Adultery?
<hr /></blockquote> Send them an email and ask. Heck while you are at it why not ask Monica what she thinks.

[ QUOTE ]
That particular witch hunt was designed by the Republicans <hr /></blockquote> Yep, they really caught you guys with your pants down. You must not be as intellectually elite as you might think.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you think the 100 mil wasted on investigating that was your tax dollars well spent...how can anyone argue with that logic? <hr /></blockquote> It took that much just to get the left to agree Clinton lied. You are a stubborn-opinionated group of people. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

cushioncrawler
12-15-2006, 02:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> .... And the friendly neighborhood watch groups will receive more Fed funding with the hope of doubling their numbers. The Bush administration also released a 24-page "Citizens' Preparedness Guide" that includes tips on boarding airplanes and handling suspicious mail. The pamphlet urges citizens to call the FBI if they overhear talk of a terrorist plot or witness "a pattern of suspicious activity." Colette Marchesini-Pollock, who helps run an Orange Hat patrol group on Capitol Hill, said her group was already attuned to picking out suspicious people and vehicles. "If we see a Ryder truck . . . and we know nobody's moving in . . . somebody would call it in" to police, Marchesini-Pollock said. It's kind of a double-edged sword...trading security for being spied on by your neighbors. Worked well though in Nazi Germany.....<hr /></blockquote>
Kidz -- what about the kidz?? -- Marchesini-Pollock &amp; Co might watch the neighbours, but who will watch Marchesini-Pollock &amp; Co?? -- their kidz will -- neighbourhood-kreig unt watchen-blitz ichten now complete. madMac.

wolfdancer
12-15-2006, 03:50 PM
Mac, don't worry, they're including training for that little brown shirt wearing Jugendgruppe

Gayle in MD
12-15-2006, 08:34 PM
Just for you, Ed, just in case you ever want to address your reading problem.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/essays/monkey.html

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> George W. Bush and his advisos allowed no room for doube, in their public presentations, that the Iraqi regime was in possession of a vast store of potentiaolly lethal "weapons of mass destruction' (WMD) and that it possessed not only the willingness but also the capability to use hese weapons against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. In September 2002, a the side of Birtish prime minister Tony Blair, President Bush proclaimed, "I would aremind you that when the inspectors first went into iraq and were denied-finally denied access, a report came out of the atomic - the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], that they were six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." In face the estimate to which Bush was referring was more than a decade old and was made before Iraq's military capabilities were decimated in the gulf War. Ari Fleisscher tried to claim in a letter to the Washington Post that "it was in fact the International Institute for Strategic Studies that issued the report concluding that Iraq could develop nuclear weapons in as few as six months." b ut that report, which was unavailable at the time Fleischer made his claim, did not support Bush's statement, either. In a speech to the nation, Bush also added, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," an alliance that "could allow the Iraqi regime to atack America without leaving any fingerprints." But this cliam, too, was wholly unsupported and was contradicted by the CIA. Its report, declassified after Bush's speech, rated the possibility as "low" that Hussein would initiate a chemical or biological weapons attack against the United States...

In the same speech, Bush warned the nation that Iraq possessed a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft - "drones" - that could be used "for missions targeting the United States." But a CIA reposr suggested that the fleet war more of an "experiment"
and "attempt" and labeled it a "serious threat to Iraq's neighbors and to international military forces in the region" but said nothing about its having sufficient range to threaten the United States. And the air force, which controls most of the American military;s unmanned aricraft, believed the cliam was nonsense as well. (Analysts at the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said the air force view was widely accepted at the time Bush made his claim.) In fact these drones were all directed at Iran.

In October 2002, in his first major speech devoted solely to the Iraqi threat, Bush told Americans, "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles - far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Turkey, and other nations-in a region where more than one hundred thirty-five thousand American civilians and service members live and work." This, too, was false. The missile under question, the Al Samoud - 2, can actually travel less than two hundred miles, howhere near far enough to reach these targets.

In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, Bush cataloged specific amounts of potentially lethat weapons with which he feared Saddam Hussein could threaten his neighbors and the United States itself. These included "biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over twenty five thousand liters of anthrax - enough doses to kill several million people; material sufficient to produce more than thirgy-eight thousand liters of botulin7um toxin - enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure; the materials to produce as much as five hundred tons of sarin, mustqard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands; upwards of thirty thousand munitions capable of delivering chemical agents; several mobile biological weapons labs ...designed to rpoduce germ warfare agents." In each of these cases, Bush emphasized that Hussein had admitted to having such weapons in the past, but had failed to account for them in his declaration to the United Nations of the weapons he "currently" possessed. By asserting this, Bush completely discounted the iraqis' explanation that the weapons in question had been destroyed in conjunction with the inspections regime that had been under way after the first Gulf War. There was, in fact, a consistent lack of any ambiguity at all to the Bush administration's claims: [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Almost three thousand of our troops have died, just in Iraq, Ed, and approximately ten thousand are either mentally ill, havwe brain damage, or have lost limbs. All through this war, Bush, and his administration have lied about conditions on the ground, faked the numbers of attacks per day, lied about the numbers of Iraqis dead, and lied about all the other laws they have broken while spying on us, and trashing the Geneva conventions. Rumsfeld now leaves our military, broken, and Rice, who also lied us into this war, doesn't have a clue about how to get us out of this mess, nor does Bush, who warns us not to rush his decision making!!! The very idea of occupying Iraq, was a Republican idea, a conservative idea, and a dumb idea. it is a failure, which has greatly endangered this country.

compare that to....

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewenski."

It has only been two weeks or so since George Bush told the American people that we were winning the war in Iraq. how3ever, the Baker commission, and all the Generals, and the Iraqis, have been calling Iraq a "Failed State" in a CIVLE WAR for months. Bush's lies are neverending! Yet, people like you, with your inability to grasp, or speak the truth, refuse to acknowledge the truth about George Bush, his lies, his incompetence, his denial, and his ego. By doing so, you have BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS, because you are sentencing our troops, and our country, to more of the same lies, and more of the same loss of live and limb.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
12-16-2006, 05:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> compare that to....

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewenski."

Gayle in Md.





<hr /></blockquote>
Gayle...every time you make this point you lose credibility. If you say that one lie is worse than another, what I hear is you think some lies are ok and others aren't. So how are we to believe anything you post? If you think it's ok to lie (under oath, no less) I have to think you believe it's ok to lie right here as well.
Steve

wolfdancer
12-16-2006, 09:28 AM
Do you mean this line:
"There are men, psychologists tell us, who can look directly at a printed page, read what it says and inject an opposite."

Or, are you making some sort of statement regarding Ed's lineage?

wolfdancer
12-16-2006, 09:50 AM
I believe that Gayle is merely trying,to point out differences in both the gravity of the lies, and the consequences resulting from the lies.
Maybe it would help you and Ed if theft was used as an example.
I think you both could agree that there is a vast difference between stealing $5, and stealing $500,000. From your moralistic viewpoint, both would be breaking a biblical commandment, but here on earth, one is petit larceny, the other grand theft.....and the punishments for each offense are dealt out accordingly.
Since Clinton was impeached for his gentlemanly lie.....I'd assume George's merits the firing squad, hypothetically, of course...
As to lies on this board they are many, and mostly from the right. Rather than repressing my anger upon reading them, I merely say silently "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do" I shall add to my prayers, the hope that you both may be blessed with better comprehension in the near future.

DickLeonard
12-16-2006, 10:01 AM
Gayle I have come to the Conclusion that the person who came up with that saying Only a Fool argues with a Fool were talking with Eg8r and Pooltchr ancestors. End of my discussions.####

Gayle in MD
12-16-2006, 12:23 PM
Steve,
Respectfully, but with trepidation, I submit that if you had a comprehensive understanding of what was actually happening in the Clinton administration during the years when his administration was being crippled by right wing neocon intellectuals, and the Republicans in power at the time, who chose the partisan politics of personal destruction, above of any true appreciation of the vast successes being acheived for our country by President Clinton, you might just have an understanding why those neocons, and their partisan lack of appreciation for the best interests of our country, are to a great degree responsible for the fact that we now find ourselves in a quagmire.

First of all, you will have to accept the psychological FACT, that EVERYONE LIES. If that is so, then it requires some attention to the fact that there are all sorts of reasons why people lie, and appreciate the value of assessing the consequences of any given lie, and taking into consideration the results of any given lie. If you can't get your "Black, or white" mentality around that, debating it is moot.

Bill Clinton had decimated Saddams power. Operations were on-going, both in, and around Iraq. The intrusion into Clintons private sex life, and the partisan Republican conspiracy to dig dig dig for dirt, in spite of the fact that our forces were having terrific success in not only weakening Saddam, but destroying his facilities and abilities to reconstitute anything that could threaten either Iraqies, or any country in the near future.

Further, sanctions had proven to be highly successful. Not only were we protecting the Kurds, but also Shia, and in the process, we were building allies in Iraq, through humanitarian efforts. This was extremely valuable, since Iraqis had developed an anti America attitude, after having been encouraged by Bush Sr. to rise up, against Saddam, which they did, only to be left without any aid from Bush Sr, after they had put themselves at risk, and were then abandoned by Bush Sr, to the slaughter from Saddam, which followed their up-rising.

Not until after we invaded Iraq, and found absolutely nothing, did it become undeniably clear, in spite of Bush's untruthful propaganda on Iraq, to people Like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush, and the weapons inspectors, how extremely successful the Clinton policy had been, although the results of those policies had lead to an overall attitude by virtually all of our intelligence people, in all the Agencies, that Saddam was in a box, had been weakened, and wasn't likely to do anything of any consequence against the United States. And even if he so decided, the Clinton efforts in the Middle East, if continued, prohibited any reconstituting without our detection.


Republicans, during that same time, having accused Clinton of trying to "WAG the dog" and launching non stop investigations with their perpetual politics of personal destruction, partially to mask and minimize media attention to his successful, on-going efforts in the Middle East, and change dialog, regarding not only Saddam, but Cinton's on-going projects to improve intelligence operations, in order to home in on bin Laden, remove him at the right time, and in a way that would not incite any perripheral Middle East problems,.... Republicans, nevertheless, crippled the entire country over a matter which should never have been the subject of political interest in the first place.

Intellectual neocons, like Wolfowitz, having festered within themselves a hunger to return to Iraq to "Finish the job" of the first Bush administration's Iraq policies, which were in the true sense of foreign policy, considered by insiders, to have been a failure, and prove the Bush Sr.'s policy as having stopped short of regime change in Iraq, which is entirely a program which THEY wanted...but those same neocons were completely ignorant of why regime change, in and of itself, was not the best course of action in the middle east, and also, considered by many of our allies in the middle east, to be a policy which would threaten the entire middle east, unleashing and inciting Iran, and also radical Sunni counterparts on both sides of Iraq. Clinton's intelligence people know that such a circumstance was not at all welcomed by our allies. Additionally, to do so, was considered far less constructive than the Clinton Policies of containment, and oversight, intelligenc diligence, and the further weakening of the regime.

Having been the architects of the invasion, only to uncover nothing but proof of Clintons success, proven by Saddam's weakened circumstances, and the overall destruction of Iraq's infrastructure, the present Bush administration, began to launch a number of fantastic lies, in order to cover up their total lack of understanding of Middle East affairs in general, their huge mistake in occupying Iraq, which had been fed by their insistance to disregard all the intelligence experts, and all their warnings, in their determination to SELL us the need for a war in Iraq.

Lies were the tools used to launch an illegal war, against a country that had proven through their lack of any military efforts to resist the destruction of their facilities during the Clinton administration, that they were not interested in any aggressive actions against us, but were instead, worried and focussed on bluffing Iran, their next door neighbor. All this was known and accepted among all the agencies in our intelligence arena before Clinton left office.

The fact that George Bush would be so arrogant to think that by merely lying to all of us about the threat Iraq posed, that those lies would be completely overlooked, and not discussed by those who had worked in the Clinton administration, even though they had all been promptly removed after Bush took power, regardless of their expertise, give some hint to his massive ego. It was not only foolish on his part, but actually stupid of him to think that he could get away with it. And stupid of him to think that ultimately, his lies, and the lies of Rice, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rove, Bremmer, Franks, and Rumsfeld, would not eventually be exposed.

For six years, books have been written by the very intelligence people who were removed from their positions, and by respected, acclaimed middle East experts, and internationally respected journalists and reporters, documenting all the lies told to the public from the start. They have documented the fact that it was not logical, or reasonable to invade Iraq, and that doing so would put our country at risk, and build a drastically dangerous, no win situation in the Middle East, which could very well threaten the entire middle east, and the world's energy requirements, not to mention the devastating consequences from the multilayered Middle East loyalties among many Nations, and States in the region.

Of course, the right wing neocons, along with the blind faith Bush supporters, failed to put any value to their warnings, just as Bush continues to do to this very day, and quickly adapted the previously successful campaign Rovarian/Bush policies of using propaganda, buzz words, semantics, nationa security claims, accusations of treason, and all other forms of denial, designed to shame Americans into thinking that by using their powers of deduction to assess George Bush's massive, and ignorant, deceitful policy failures, amounted to not supporting our troops, for example. That it was reasonable, to transform through semantics, a weapon, Terror used by redical elements, into an international war, Terrorism.

I will say this much, there are lies, and then there are lies, and not only that, but there are appropriate questions, and inappropriate questions. The questions asked of Bill Clinton, were not only inappropriate, but unprecedented, given that we have had a virtual slew of men in the office of the presidency over the entire span of American History, who found the office to be demanding, demoralizing, frustrating, and taxing enough, to tempt them to take for themselves, the amazing, envigorating, energizing, mind clearing salve of a piece of STRANGE!~!!!

It is not a matter of what is right or wrong, IMO, it is a matter of what is so, and there are long lists of Presidents, who have been given a pass to indulge, not only by the press, but by, shall we say, less hypocritical men from the opposing party, than has been displayed by today's so called Christian Republicans, who then not only had to resign over their own mistresses, but stop beating them.

As in all things in life, it is a matter of degree. The degree to which a President's ego causes him to partake in liasons with the oposite sex, is a far cry from a President whose ego requires that our troops be left in the middle of an illegal, uncalled for, Civil War, to be slaughtered every day, in a war which he lied about from the start, and throughout. I would make the point here, that refusing to answer questions about such a policy disaster, honestly, and accurately, is certainly worse, given the stakes involved, than lying about ones sex life. Along with that, the hundreds of thousands of people who have died because of his ego demanding rush to launch it in the first place, lack of preparation to do so, his intentional deceit during his campaign about his intentions to launch it, and his complete failure to prosecute it in an organized, effective manner, along with his failure to familiarize himself with foreign affairs beforehand, are all sins which I find far far greater sins, of far greater consequences, than Bill Clintons cigar shannanigans.

If you can't see the difference, it can only be because you don't want to see it. And also, I might add, that all those apathetic, partisan Americans, who went right back out in 2004 and voted for George Bush, knowing that he lied about this war, and then failed to see that our troops were propperly equipped to fight it, refused to answer truthfully to all necessary inquisitions into the circumstances of it, did not perform their duty, any better than George Bush, or the Republican majority congress who refused to perform their duty of checks and balances. All those voters, who did not realize what would result in his re-election, because they failed to take the time to educate themselves about his performance, his policies, our nations foreign affairs, his lies before and after the occupation, the likely global consequences of it, and then denied his unprecedented incompetence, and law breaking, have the blood of our troops, and untold Iraqis, on their hands. I can only say, that I, for one, could not live with myself very easily had I been one of them, as in MY book, I consider it a sin, to live in the greatest country in the world, and not make damn sure I educate myself before voting, as is the duty of every American, and that I judge our national candidates by their performance, rather than by personal partisan ideals, tax considerations, religious dogma, or sheer ignorance and mental laziness.

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
12-16-2006, 04:03 PM
Gayle I couldn't have said it better but I wouldn't have wasted my time.####

pooltchr
12-16-2006, 08:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr>Gayle I have come to the Conclusion that the person who came up with that saying Only a Fool argues with a Fool were talking with Eg8r and Pooltchr ancestors. End of my discussions.#### <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Gayle I couldn't have said it better but I wouldn't have wasted my time.#### <hr /></blockquote>

I thought you said that was the end of your discussion. Or was that just a little white lie?
Steve

pooltchr
12-16-2006, 08:15 PM
Gayle,
You are absolutely right! I am just an ignorant, lazy minded idiot who has no desire to weed through a 16 paragraph rant to try and figure out what the point is. I'm sorry you just can't seem to understand a simple point. A lie is a lie is a lie. Motives have no bearing on it. And a lie under oath is a crime. Motives have no bearing on it.

Wolf, our laws have determined that stealing $5 will face a different punishment than stealing $5000...but both actions are illegal and both carry consequences.
If you lie to your wife and get caught, the consequences are different than if you lie under oath. But both actions do have consequences. We all make our choices, and we all have to accept responsibility for those choices.

Two guys each steal a car. One steals a Toyota and one steals a Lexis. Is one crime worse than the other?
Steve

Qtec
12-16-2006, 09:31 PM
Star: Tell me Mr Pres, and you are still under oath, what would you if you found Charlise Theron in your bedroom naked. Would you call security?
Bill: Absolutely! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Do you really think the US citizens who voted for BC in the first place, would deem that lie as an adequate reason for impeachment?
Is stealing a car the same as rape? They are both criminal acts.
Reagan sent weapons to Iran and funded terrorists!!!!! He defied the will of the people and broke the law.............and don't get me started on GW! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

BC got a BJ.
Wow.

OK, Lets just say he did lie.
He lied.

Now.....
'how did he get into the position that he could ever be asked that question under oath '?

GW wouldn't even go under oath, wouldn't even see the 9/11 comission without Dick C holding his hand!!!!!!!!!!! and we are talking about the most lethal attack on US soil since Pearl Harbour, the biggest intelligence failure ever and the with the real threat of more attacks to come!!?
He was even AGAINST an inquiry! If it wasn't for people like the Jersey 4, there would never have been an investigation.
IMO GW started all the conspiracy theories right there. Most would think, "what does he have to hide?".

IMO, if this Lewinsky caper is all you can pin on BC, then he must be a saint. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif


..........but I digress. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

Qtec
12-16-2006, 09:57 PM
GW was an opportunist doesn't answer the question.

BTW, did Clinton lie? I googled that exact same Q and this was the top of the list. It at least proves there is still some debate over the matter. Its from Law Reviewe.
pdf file (http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf)

Conclusion.
[ QUOTE ]
So, did Clinton lie? To be more exact, did he commit perjury?
And could the case have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
My personal view is that he probably did not commit perjury
based on the evidence we have so far examined. He certainly intended
to mislead his questioners in the Jones deposition. But the
Bronston case emphasized that intent to mislead is not the legal standard
in deciding whether someone made a false statement under federal
perjury law. It is up to the examining lawyer to establish a clear
record of the witness’s testimony. This is something that the Jones
lawyers failed to do. Instead of probing how Clinton understood
phrases like “sexual relationship,” they handed him their own definition. <hr /></blockquote>

Oh boy! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
12-17-2006, 12:19 PM
Well then, I take it you must be furious with George Bush? I have lost count of his lies, and also of the people who died because of them. Just a few weeks ago, he said we were winning in Iraq, which he has been saying all along. Is that a lie? How bout when he said Rumsfeld was doing a great job? Is that a lie. If not, then why did he just get rid of him? Condi didn't lie in front of the Senate? Good God, Steve, you talk about partisanship, and lies, but you sure as hell don't want to address the fact that Bakers group came right out and said that they've been lying to all of us, about a war, that our kids are dying in, but that doesn't grab your attention? That lie isn't worse? That's some strange values, and thinking processes you've got going on there....

Gayle in Md.

cushioncrawler
12-17-2006, 02:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> .... and we are talking about the most lethal attack on US soil since Pearl Harbour, the biggest intelligence failure ever and the with the real threat of more attacks to come!!?.... <hr /></blockquote>
Q -- The bigger issue is that it (9/11) woznt an intelligence failure -- "they" knew (perhaps not the full details).

And, Pearl Harbour woznt an intelligence failure either -- "they" knew (perhaps not the full details). madMac.

cushioncrawler
12-29-2006, 06:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> OMG, Steve...I surely do not think that Clinton should ever have been asked, in the first place. No one asked Roosevelt, or Bush Sr., or Kennedy, or Eisenhower, or who knows how many others. If you think that it is the same thing when a president lies about his private sex life, as it is when a president lies about war, breaking the law, outing CIA agents, his intention to change the Secretary of State in war time, I could go on and on, but these are lies against the country, the Constitution, and the people of our country. How can you possibly think there is no difference? <hr /></blockquote>

Telling fibs is ok in some instances according to the bible. See Genesis 12:13 and 20:2 and 26:7 as shown in the following links.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/26.html#7
www.jwfiles.com/TheoWarStra.htm (http://www.jwfiles.com/TheoWarStra.htm)

Gayle in MD
01-03-2007, 12:08 AM
Thanks...interesting. Amazing how far people will go to try to condemn a democrat, isn't it? Over three thousand of our kids are dead, and thousands more injured, due to Bush's lies, but we have to put up with peoplewho want to say that Cinton's lie was just as bad. UNBELIEVABLE!!!