Author Topic: A question (Read 1876 times)

-ammo- · « **Reply #15 on:** October 16, 2001, 08:43:00 PM »

weazel, I am pretty sure he violated a few laws

I regret that nothing ever stuck. Basically if me or you did the same crap he did and we got caught, we would do time. It really bugs me that military members must follow the orders of that guy and we are held to the UCMJ...and even if he isn't...he should at least hold himself to that standard. He isnt a real man IMO.

easymo · « **Reply #16 on:** October 16, 2001, 08:43:00 PM »

I do belive there is a difference weazel.

A guy once ask me if i thought the guys who served in the states did as much.

Where do you draw the line? Did a guy who lost his legs serve as well as one that died? Did the one who never got hit serve as well? Where do you draw the line?

Well! Ill tell you

. They draw the line at the induction center. The men take the oath. The boys find a way out of it. After they take the oath its just a matter of luck. But, they all take there chances for the constitution.

As I see it Bush took the oath. (BTW there are guardsmen in the middle east right now.)

That gutless , sniveling, excuse for an ex-president found a way out.

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: easymo ]

weazel · « **Reply #17 on:** October 16, 2001, 08:59:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by easymo:
I do belive there is a difference weazel.

A guy once ask me if i thought the guys who served in the states did as much.

Where do you draw the line? Did a guy who lost his legs serve as well as one that died? Did the one who never got hit serve as well? Where do you draw the line?

Well! Ill tell you . They draw the line at the induction center. The men take the oath. The boys find a way out of it. After they take the oath its just a matter of luck. But, they all take there chances for the constitution.

As I see it Bush took the oath. (BTW there are guardsmen in the middle east right now.)

That gutless , sniveling, excuse for an ex-president found a way out.

I wasn't hacking on the National Guard, just stating there was more than one way to be a draft dodger.

Wobble · « **Reply #18 on:** October 16, 2001, 09:05:00 PM »

If Lieing is OK with you, and cheating is OK with you, and general subjectiveness to what is true and right is OK with you...

and as long as will not cannot and does not affect you, not a shred of it would be any of your business.. or the rest of the public's.

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Wobble ]

Greese · « **Reply #19 on:** October 16, 2001, 09:55:00 PM »

I wasn't defending Ken Starr. I don't know enough about htat stuff, but I know that my commander in chief looked us all in the eye and lied to us, rather than being a man.

Public elected official=a guy who needs to be above reproach.

Presidents have to keep their nose clean, or someone, "hether it be a right wing conspiracy" or the media, whatever, will take what they find and run with it. A guy in that position can't be running around with the interns, someone will find out and smear it all over the news. So it may not have been our business. Well, I personally didn't care, except that it was another man who neglected his commitment to his wife. But when he lied about it for the whole country to see, that was enough for me to not respect him again.

As far as blaming the terrorist attacks on clinton, I can't do that. The only one to balme is bin Laden. To say Clinton dropped the ball on bin laden would be accurate, but nobody could have forseen the disaster of Sep. 11th.

Dago · « **Reply #20 on:** October 17, 2001, 12:54:00 AM »

Does Clinton has a right to privacy? To a point. Does he have a right, while holding the highest elected office in the United States to carry on sexual escapades with interns and anyone else he choose to molest?

Not if it puts him in a postion that could subject him to blackmail or coersion, in my opinion anyway.

dago

Montezuma · « **Reply #21 on:** October 17, 2001, 01:09:00 AM »

"They can run, but they can't hide"

-Ronald Reagan

Dune · « **Reply #22 on:** October 17, 2001, 01:15:00 AM »

Getting bj's in the Oval Office: Distastefull? Yes. Classless? You bet.

But whatever.

What does anger me about him is that he broke the law. You can defend his right to privacy and whether or not the US people had a right to know what he was doing till the cows come home. What you can't argue with is the fact he committed perjury. He lied under oath.

That is a crime folks. If he wanted to dodge the question, he could have invoked the 5th or refused to answer and faced those consequences. However, he choose to lie under oath.

One more time. That is a crime. He committed a crime while President of the United States. This wasn't some international law. This wasn't pissing off one part of the world, or some interest group in the US. He broke a law that exists in every jurisdiction in the country. You don't even have to be a law student to know that it is illegal to lie under oath. But he did it anyways.

weazel · « **Reply #23 on:** October 17, 2001, 01:48:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dune:
Getting bj's in the Oval Office: Distastefull? Yes. Classless? You bet.

But whatever.

What does anger me about him is that he broke the law. You can defend his right to privacy and whether or not the US people had a right to know what he was doing till the cows come home. What you can't argue with is the fact he committed perjury. He lied under oath.

That is a crime folks. If he wanted to dodge the question, he could have invoked the 5th or refused to answer and faced those consequences. However, he choose to lie under oath.

One more time. That is a crime. He committed a crime while President of the United States. This wasn't some international law. This wasn't pissing off one part of the world, or some interest group in the US. He broke a law that exists in every jurisdiction in the country. You don't even have to be a law student to know that it is illegal to lie under oath. But he did it anyways.

IIRC you are an attorney Dune?

Sure it's a crime AND wrong!

The issue is SHOULD he have been questioned about it?

IMO it was just sleazy right wing tactics to give them political capital for the 2000 elections, it worked but that buzzard will come home to roost eventually...and Republicans will look stupid in the countries eyes when it does.

BTW if a person is proven to have lied under oath in court and the presiding judge does nothing about it what are my options?

Can I or should I report this to someone above him? I got a raw deal in a perjury situation that really pisses me off.

Nash · « **Reply #24 on:** October 17, 2001, 03:02:00 AM »

Oh man...

But anyways, easymo, if you define your President's character by his military service (or lack thereof) you should be absolutely appalled with your current Commander in Chief. Many vets are.

To everyone else, if you define your Presidents's (both current and former) character by their honesty with the public you would be equally as appalled.

To the Dems on this board. This is a BBS revolving around a military simulation. As such, you are obviously going to see many many MANY more conservatives engaging in a group hug. "It's ok buddy - your right... No no, YOU'RE right... no I insist, YOU'RE RIGHT.

Whatever. This place is as good a gauge on things as walking into an English Lit class and asking those folks about world events.

I didn't read this thread in it's entirety but from what I scanned I can pick out at *least* twenty things I saw stated as fact which absolutely were not, and could back up those things with unassailable supporting evidence. Really. No... *really*. Would it make a diff? Nah. That old thing; if ya say some things enough times and they become truth, and hell... lets be honest... the truth is only that which we want to hear in the first place. Some go to CNN for their "truth", some go to Fox, some go to Rush.. some to Salon... well you get my point I hope. Truth. Despite people seemingly grasping at that sort of thing here, not many people actually want it to begin with. We want what already fits. These discussions are only for *reassurance*. The rest, the conflicting, the things that require effort... well.. there are only so many hours in a day and christ... we all got toejam to do... including coming to this BBS and spewing out our particular canned version of the "truth". And yeah, seeking reassurance where we know we're gonna get that.

"Whew! These people, they *get it*!"

So screw it.. Right Wingers (oh my!) - enjoy the group hug. Left Wingers - if yer bored, if ya wanna stir some toejam up, or if something actually does get yer back up, by all means express it... But just don't expect a lot. In terms of hard political discussion (by both sides), this place is a goof. A circle jerk. A playground that innevitably winds up in some combination of neener-neener and dogpile.

<hiccup> You heard me I spoke hehe.

easymo · « **Reply #25 on:** October 17, 2001, 03:36:00 AM »

Obviously you are looking down at us from the lofty perch of righteousness,Nash. Surprised you took the time to comment.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #26 on:** October 17, 2001, 07:42:00 AM »

Nash, sounds like your finally reaching the boiling point that your College Professors might have been wrong all those years after all.

Hangtime · « **Reply #27 on:** October 17, 2001, 11:03:00 AM »

Whelp; it's better than punting the cat... if nothin else; the BBS is a place to spew without a condom requirement.

I'd be lying if I were to say I hadn't learned something in all these discussions.

Like, for example; I'd never get elected for a second terms as president if I nuked the middle-east into an orbital epitaph for terrorists.

Oh, well.

weazel · « **Reply #28 on:** October 17, 2001, 12:11:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Montezuma:
"They can run, but they can't hide"

-Ronald Reagan

OH PUHLEASEEEEEEEE!

Adding a quote from that evil son of a squeak in a Clinton bashing thread?

Reagans record speaks for itself, liar, back door deals with terrorist sponsoring states, allowing cocaine to be imported and sold in the US all the while pursuing the <lol> "war on drugs".

Scum and hypocrite of the lowest order.

Clinton was a fediddleing angel by comparison to that criminal.

AKIron · « **Reply #29 on:** October 17, 2001, 12:18:00 PM »

May be that the investigation of Clinton went too far, maybe not far enough. However, it didn't start out as a question of whether or not he had sex with Monica. The whole thing began with accusations of sexual harrassment.

Kinda gives a black eye to those Clinton supporting feminist organizations. Seems much to easy for them turn the whole thing around into a right to privacy issue.