Science > Abortion > Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush?
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" |
| Date: |
18 Aug 2004 02:41:39 PM |
| Object: |
Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
.
|
|
| User: "wally" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
18 Aug 2004 04:19:35 PM |
|
|
<snip>
Dimwitted presidents for dimwitted americans.
What pisses me off is that that fucktart Bush has made the entire
world an unsafe place, I am not even in the US.
at this point there are two solutions to most of the world's problems:
-carpet bomb the US and exterminate every living thing in a
non-discriminatory manner
-carpet bomb the middle east and exterminate every living thing in a
non-discriminatory manner
"Man is the root of all problems. No man, no problem"
-Joseph Stalin
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Black Wibble" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
18 Aug 2004 11:16:44 PM |
|
|
"wally" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:BJPUc.15579$ZI1.726514@news20.bellglobal.com...
<snip>
Dimwitted presidents for dimwitted americans.
What pisses me off is that that fucktart Bush has made the entire
world an unsafe place, I am not even in the US.
Do you also think George Bush needn't have bothered with any plan to secure
the U.S. from terrorist attacks post 9/11 even if he had not responded by
toppling Afghanistian's teleban dictatorship nor Hussein's dictatorship?
at this point there are two solutions to most of the world's problems:
-carpet bomb the US and exterminate every living thing in a
non-discriminatory manner
No. The answer is to exterminate your murderous friends in the M.E. who are
tryng their utmost to destroy any hope of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan
while at the same time attack their Islamofascist ideology. It would help
if the Bush adminstration weren't so PC, and called this war a "war on
Islamofascism" rather than a "war or terrorism".
-carpet bomb the middle east and exterminate every living thing in a
non-discriminatory manner
No. Just kill your "insurgent" mates wherever they are found.
"Man is the root of all problems. No man, no problem"
-Joseph Stalin
It makes sense you'd be one of Joseph Stalin's spiritual brethtren.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "the Bede" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
18 Aug 2004 02:43:45 PM |
|
|
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MuahMan" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
18 Aug 2004 03:19:54 PM |
|
|
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any politician
at this level.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parsons" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
18 Aug 2004 09:11:46 PM |
|
|
In article <zROUc.9727$rd5.2406@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
<MuahMan@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any politician
at this level.
And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's *****
for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a ***** whether he got
one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
18 Aug 2004 10:22:30 PM |
|
|
In article <180820042111429799%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
In article <zROUc.9727$rd5.2406@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
<MuahMan@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any politician
at this level.
And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
Exactly! It basically means that those most qualified for the office
don't want to run for it.
Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's *****
for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a ***** whether he got
one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
Nobody cares that he got a blow-job (though I do question his taste in
women), and it shouldn't have been reported in the news. It's no one's
business but his and that fat, ugly ***** who gave it to him. But OTOH,
when asked about it, under oath, before a duly ordained grand jury, he
should have told the truth.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snuggles" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
18 Aug 2004 11:07:57 PM |
|
|
In article <gmgravesnos-8E4F5C.20223018082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article <180820042111429799%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
In article <zROUc.9727$rd5.2406@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
<MuahMan@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a
real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any
politician
at this level.
And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
Exactly! It basically means that those most qualified for the office
don't want to run for it.
Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's *****
for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a ***** whether he got
one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
Nobody cares that he got a blow-job (though I do question his taste in
women), and it shouldn't have been reported in the news. It's no one's
business but his and that fat, ugly ***** who gave it to him. But OTOH,
when asked about it, under oath, before a duly ordained grand jury, he
should have told the truth.
Some questions just shouldn't be asked and I don't have a problem with a
person lying if someone has the bad taste to ask.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snuggles, not Shuggie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 02:40:37 AM |
|
|
In article
<submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff-8060A8.00075719082004@corp.supernews.com>,
Snuggles <submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff@spam.spamcop.net> wrote:
In article <gmgravesnos-8E4F5C.20223018082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article <180820042111429799%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
In article <zROUc.9727$rd5.2406@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
<MuahMan@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a
real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any
politician
at this level.
And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
Exactly! It basically means that those most qualified for the office
don't want to run for it.
Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's *****
for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a ***** whether he got
one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
Nobody cares that he got a blow-job (though I do question his taste in
women), and it shouldn't have been reported in the news. It's no one's
business but his and that fat, ugly ***** who gave it to him. But OTOH,
when asked about it, under oath, before a duly ordained grand jury, he
should have told the truth.
Some questions just shouldn't be asked and I don't have a problem with a
person lying if someone has the bad taste to ask.
Big of you, but irrelevant. The law is the law. If the court allows the
question, and you're under oath, you have to answer truthfully,
otherwise its the Graybar Hotel for a good long stay. You see, in order
for our system of jurisprudence to have even the slimmest chance of
working, it must be this way. That's basically the bottom line. All
other considerations are immaterial.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 09:24:35 AM |
|
|
In article <gmgravesnos-737474.00424719082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article
<submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff-8060A8.00075719082004@corp.supernews.com>,
Snuggles <submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff@spam.spamcop.net> wrote:
In article <gmgravesnos-8E4F5C.20223018082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article <180820042111429799%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
In article <zROUc.9727$rd5.2406@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
<MuahMan@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have
a
real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any
politician
at this level.
And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
Exactly! It basically means that those most qualified for the office
don't want to run for it.
Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's *****
for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a ***** whether he got
one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
Nobody cares that he got a blow-job (though I do question his taste in
women), and it shouldn't have been reported in the news. It's no one's
business but his and that fat, ugly ***** who gave it to him. But OTOH,
when asked about it, under oath, before a duly ordained grand jury, he
should have told the truth.
Some questions just shouldn't be asked and I don't have a problem with a
person lying if someone has the bad taste to ask.
Big of you, but irrelevant. The law is the law. If the court allows the
question, and you're under oath, you have to answer truthfully,
otherwise its the Graybar Hotel for a good long stay. You see, in order
for our system of jurisprudence to have even the slimmest chance of
working, it must be this way. That's basically the bottom line. All
other considerations are immaterial.
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group"
"You really need to learn the whole concept of context"
- Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
--
Steve C
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 09:51:09 AM |
|
|
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-0FB32D.08245819082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/19/04 7:24 AM:
Big of you, but irrelevant. The law is the law. If the court allows the
question, and you're under oath, you have to answer truthfully,
otherwise its the Graybar Hotel for a good long stay. You see, in order
for our system of jurisprudence to have even the slimmest chance of
working, it must be this way. That's basically the bottom line. All
other considerations are immaterial.
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
LOL.... this from the same person who has authored such quotes as:
Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna give a ***** about breaking
my word to a deviant like yourself...
Sure sounds like you think you can pick and chose when you should tell the
truth. I feel one should be honest and care about their word even toward
those they do not respect. You have admitted you do not. Why the dishonest
flip-flop on that issue now?
Oh yes, lest we forget, you also once claimed it was "reality" that
prevented you from refuting me.
Your problems with reality continue...
--
"everyone that regularly posts here is a moron and an ***** in some
respect, myself included. That's why we come here, to seek our own kind."
- Steve Carroll
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 01:04:06 PM |
|
|
In article <BD4A0C6D.5D7CC%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-0FB32D.08245819082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/19/04 7:24 AM:
Big of you, but irrelevant. The law is the law. If the court allows the
question, and you're under oath, you have to answer truthfully,
otherwise its the Graybar Hotel for a good long stay. You see, in order
for our system of jurisprudence to have even the slimmest chance of
working, it must be this way. That's basically the bottom line. All
other considerations are immaterial.
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
LOL.... this from the same person who has authored such quotes as:
Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna give a ***** about breaking
my word to a deviant like yourself...
Sure sounds like you think you can pick and chose when you should tell the
truth. I feel one should be honest and care about their word even toward
those they do not respect. You have admitted you do not. Why the dishonest
flip-flop on that issue now?
I realize that your intense hatred for Steve Carroll clouds your vision
somewhat, but I don't see any inconsistency here at all. Lying to an
opponent on UseNet is hardly the same thing as lying in court under
oath. One is trivial, of no consequence a real who cares. I suspect that
half the stuff people post here is either a lie or an exaggeration, and
what difference does it make? On the other hand, lying to a judge or
Grand Jury undermines the system and cannot be condoned under any
circumstances.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 01:17:37 PM |
|
|
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-B380F8.11061619082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 8/19/04 11:04 AM:
In article <BD4A0C6D.5D7CC%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-0FB32D.08245819082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/19/04 7:24 AM:
Big of you, but irrelevant. The law is the law. If the court allows the
question, and you're under oath, you have to answer truthfully,
otherwise its the Graybar Hotel for a good long stay. You see, in order
for our system of jurisprudence to have even the slimmest chance of
working, it must be this way. That's basically the bottom line. All
other considerations are immaterial.
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
LOL.... this from the same person who has authored such quotes as:
Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna give a ***** about breaking
my word to a deviant like yourself...
Sure sounds like you think you can pick and chose when you should tell the
truth. I feel one should be honest and care about their word even toward
those they do not respect. You have admitted you do not. Why the dishonest
flip-flop on that issue now?
I realize that your intense hatred for Steve Carroll clouds your vision
somewhat, but I don't see any inconsistency here at all. Lying to an
opponent on UseNet is hardly the same thing as lying in court under
oath.
Oh, I agree with that. I am commenting on Steve's comment
You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
Clearly he has done so.
The fact that some types of lying are worse than others is not under
question, at least not by me.
One is trivial, of no consequence a real who cares.
Well, comparatively... I still think honesty matters, even in Usenet, but
compared to, say, lying under oath to a grand jury or lying to the American
people about your reasons for going to war - well... it is not even in the
ballpark. Heck, even on private matters, lying about cheating on a spouse
is far, far, far more important (added to make it clear I excuse neither
party's presidents for their lies, and to include cases possible for people
not in power).
I suspect that half the stuff people post here is either a lie or an
exaggeration, and what difference does it make? On the other hand, lying to a
judge or Grand Jury undermines the system and cannot be condoned under any
circumstances.
I think in each case reasonable consequences make sense... the consequences
of lying to a Grand Jury should just be more official and more severe...
much, much more severe.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 02:36:43 PM |
|
|
In article <BD4A3CD1.5D866%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-B380F8.11061619082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 8/19/04 11:04 AM:
In article <BD4A0C6D.5D7CC%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-0FB32D.08245819082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/19/04 7:24 AM:
Big of you, but irrelevant. The law is the law. If the court allows the
question, and you're under oath, you have to answer truthfully,
otherwise its the Graybar Hotel for a good long stay. You see, in order
for our system of jurisprudence to have even the slimmest chance of
working, it must be this way. That's basically the bottom line. All
other considerations are immaterial.
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
LOL.... this from the same person who has authored such quotes as:
Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna give a ***** about
breaking
my word to a deviant like yourself...
This doesn't show me saying that I WILL or even WOULD do it, Snit. In
essence, it only shows me saying that if I DID do it, I wouldn't worry
about doing it with someone like you.
Sure sounds like you think you can pick and chose when you should tell the
truth. I feel one should be honest and care about their word even toward
those they do not respect. You have admitted you do not. Why the
dishonest
flip-flop on that issue now?
I realize that your intense hatred for Steve Carroll clouds your vision
somewhat, but I don't see any inconsistency here at all. Lying to an
opponent on UseNet is hardly the same thing as lying in court under
oath.
Oh, I agree with that. I am commenting on Steve's comment
This context problem just has you all whacked out, doesn't it? If that
was your goal, this was a terrible place to comment on my comment.
You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
Clearly he has done so.
Under oath? Did you not read what George just said?
'Lying to an opponent on UseNet is hardly the same thing as lying in
court under oath"
See your context problem yet? Or was taking a dig at me worth showing
everyone your problem again?
The fact that some types of lying are worse than others is not under
question, at least not by me.
One is trivial, of no consequence a real who cares.
Well, comparatively... I still think honesty matters, even in Usenet,
Then practice some.
but
compared to, say, lying under oath to a grand jury or lying to the American
people about your reasons for going to war - well... it is not even in the
ballpark. Heck, even on private matters, lying about cheating on a spouse
is far, far, far more important (added to make it clear I excuse neither
party's presidents for their lies, and to include cases possible for people
not in power).
You have totally missed the point George was making.
I suspect that half the stuff people post here is either a lie or an
exaggeration, and what difference does it make? On the other hand, lying to
a
judge or Grand Jury undermines the system and cannot be condoned under any
circumstances.
I think in each case reasonable consequences make sense... the consequences
of lying to a Grand Jury should just be more official and more severe...
much, much more severe.
--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group"
"You really need to learn the whole concept of context"
- Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
--
Steve C
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 02:44:36 PM |
|
|
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-4C9458.13370419082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/19/04 12:36 PM:
In article <BD4A3CD1.5D866%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-B380F8.11061619082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 8/19/04 11:04 AM:
In article <BD4A0C6D.5D7CC%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-0FB32D.08245819082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/19/04 7:24 AM:
Big of you, but irrelevant. The law is the law. If the court allows the
question, and you're under oath, you have to answer truthfully,
otherwise its the Graybar Hotel for a good long stay. You see, in order
for our system of jurisprudence to have even the slimmest chance of
working, it must be this way. That's basically the bottom line. All
other considerations are immaterial.
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
LOL.... this from the same person who has authored such quotes as:
Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna give a ***** about
breaking my word to a deviant like yourself...
This doesn't show me saying that I WILL or even WOULD do it, Snit. In
essence, it only shows me saying that if I DID do it, I wouldn't worry
about doing it with someone like you.
Meaning if you were to pick and chose when to tell the truth it would be
perfectly acceptable to you.
You just supported my point... thanks.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 05:26:18 PM |
|
|
In article <BD4A5134.5D89A%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-4C9458.13370419082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/19/04 12:36 PM:
In article <BD4A3CD1.5D866%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-B380F8.11061619082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 8/19/04 11:04
AM:
In article <BD4A0C6D.5D7CC%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-0FB32D.08245819082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/19/04 7:24 AM:
Big of you, but irrelevant. The law is the law. If the court allows
the
question, and you're under oath, you have to answer truthfully,
otherwise its the Graybar Hotel for a good long stay. You see, in
order
for our system of jurisprudence to have even the slimmest chance of
working, it must be this way. That's basically the bottom line. All
other considerations are immaterial.
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
LOL.... this from the same person who has authored such quotes as:
Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna give a ***** about
breaking my word to a deviant like yourself...
This doesn't show me saying that I WILL or even WOULD do it, Snit. In
essence, it only shows me saying that if I DID do it, I wouldn't worry
about doing it with someone like you.
Meaning if you were to pick and chose when to tell the truth it would be
perfectly acceptable to you.
You just supported my point... thanks.
Which point, Snit? You have so many. When I said "picking and choosing"
to George, I did so in a specific context... but you don't know what
context is so it's expected you will be confused. Now, do you want to
tell me how my "picking and choosing" statement, that was made in a
context that clearly referenced being under oath, has to do with your
'point' here? Or are you talking about some other 'point' you imagine
yourself to have made?
--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group"
"You really need to learn the whole concept of context"
- Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
--
Steve C
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 07:23:35 PM |
|
|
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-7C64DD.16264119082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/19/04 3:26 PM:
In article <BD4A5134.5D89A%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-4C9458.13370419082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/19/04 12:36 PM:
In article <BD4A3CD1.5D866%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-B380F8.11061619082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 8/19/04 11:04
AM:
In article <BD4A0C6D.5D7CC%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-0FB32D.08245819082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/19/04 7:24 AM:
Big of you, but irrelevant. The law is the law. If the court allows
the
question, and you're under oath, you have to answer truthfully,
otherwise its the Graybar Hotel for a good long stay. You see, in
order
for our system of jurisprudence to have even the slimmest chance of
working, it must be this way. That's basically the bottom line. All
other considerations are immaterial.
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
LOL.... this from the same person who has authored such quotes as:
Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna give a ***** about
breaking my word to a deviant like yourself...
This doesn't show me saying that I WILL or even WOULD do it, Snit. In
essence, it only shows me saying that if I DID do it, I wouldn't worry
about doing it with someone like you.
Meaning if you were to pick and chose when to tell the truth it would be
perfectly acceptable to you.
You just supported my point... thanks.
Which point, Snit?
The point that you pick and choose when to tell the truth.
You have so many.
Thanks. I do make a lot of points... most of them very good... though, like
the one you just asked about, you are simply to stupid to understand.
When I said "picking and choosing" to George, I did so in a specific
context... but you don't know what context is so it's expected you will be
confused. Now, do you want to tell me how my "picking and choosing" statement,
that was made in a context that clearly referenced being under oath, has to do
with your 'point' here? Or are you talking about some other 'point' you
imagine yourself to have made?
LOL... I just wanna watch you back peddle... start your engine, Steve, you
gotta long way to go!
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 12:57:09 PM |
|
|
In article <fretwizz-0FB32D.08245819082004@netnews.comcast.net>,
Steve Carroll <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
In article <gmgravesnos-737474.00424719082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article
<submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff-8060A8.00075719082004@corp.supernews.com>,
Snuggles <submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff@spam.spamcop.net> wrote:
In article <gmgravesnos-8E4F5C.20223018082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article <180820042111429799%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
In article <zROUc.9727$rd5.2406@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
<MuahMan@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry
will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better
than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we
have
a
real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any
politician
at this level.
And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
Exactly! It basically means that those most qualified for the office
don't want to run for it.
Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or
even
has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's *****
for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a ***** whether he got
one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
Nobody cares that he got a blow-job (though I do question his taste in
women), and it shouldn't have been reported in the news. It's no one's
business but his and that fat, ugly ***** who gave it to him. But OTOH,
when asked about it, under oath, before a duly ordained grand jury, he
should have told the truth.
Some questions just shouldn't be asked and I don't have a problem with a
person lying if someone has the bad taste to ask.
Big of you, but irrelevant. The law is the law. If the court allows the
question, and you're under oath, you have to answer truthfully,
otherwise its the Graybar Hotel for a good long stay. You see, in order
for our system of jurisprudence to have even the slimmest chance of
working, it must be this way. That's basically the bottom line. All
other considerations are immaterial.
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
That's really it in a nutshell. The blow-job is irrelevant, the nature
of the question asked by the prosecution is irrelevant*, and the person
on the stand basically has two alternatives: answer truthfully or stand
upon their 5th Amendment rights, and decline to answer at all. Lying is
NOT an alternative and if we, as American citizens, start allowing
people to pick and choose what questions that have to be answered
truthfully, and what questions it is OK to lie about, then we've lost
one of our most basic and important rights - the right to a fair trial.
*We have a perfectly good system in place to deal with questions that
should never be asked. The opposing council merely needs to object to
the question being asked, and let the bench rule upon it's relevancy. If
the bench concurs, the question need not be answered at all. Whether
this happened with regard to Trailer-Trash Billy or not and his blow-job
question, I don't know. If an objection wasn't raised, it should have
been, if it was raised and overruled, then Clinton needed to answer it
with the truth or stand on the 5th. There is NO acceptable third
alternative.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 01:12:10 PM |
|
|
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-C188FC.10591719082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 8/19/04 10:57 AM:
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
That's really it in a nutshell. The blow-job is irrelevant, the nature
of the question asked by the prosecution is irrelevant*, and the person
on the stand basically has two alternatives: answer truthfully or stand
upon their 5th Amendment rights, and decline to answer at all. Lying is
NOT an alternative and if we, as American citizens, start allowing
people to pick and choose what questions that have to be answered
truthfully, and what questions it is OK to lie about, then we've lost
one of our most basic and important rights - the right to a fair trial.
It is clear Clinton is guilty of committing perjury. The question comes
down to the circumstances around the act and what appropriate consequences
there should be (or should have been).
To me, being guilty of committing perjury based on lying about a blow-job is
not as big of a deal as, for example, lying about reasons for attacking and
even overthrowing other countries.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 04:02:04 PM |
|
|
In article <BD4A3B8A.5D85F%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-C188FC.10591719082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 8/19/04 10:57 AM:
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
That's really it in a nutshell. The blow-job is irrelevant, the nature
of the question asked by the prosecution is irrelevant*, and the person
on the stand basically has two alternatives: answer truthfully or stand
upon their 5th Amendment rights, and decline to answer at all. Lying is
NOT an alternative and if we, as American citizens, start allowing
people to pick and choose what questions that have to be answered
truthfully, and what questions it is OK to lie about, then we've lost
one of our most basic and important rights - the right to a fair trial.
It is clear Clinton is guilty of committing perjury. The question comes
down to the circumstances around the act and what appropriate consequences
there should be (or should have been).
To me, being guilty of committing perjury based on lying about a blow-job is
not as big of a deal as, for example, lying about reasons for attacking and
even overthrowing other countries.
One was given under oath, the other wasn't. One is punishable by
imprisonment, the other by not getting re-elected.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 07:20:23 PM |
|
|
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-6CE825.14020419082004@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com on 8/19/04
2:02 PM:
In article <BD4A3B8A.5D85F%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-C188FC.10591719082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 8/19/04 10:57 AM:
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
That's really it in a nutshell. The blow-job is irrelevant, the nature
of the question asked by the prosecution is irrelevant*, and the person
on the stand basically has two alternatives: answer truthfully or stand
upon their 5th Amendment rights, and decline to answer at all. Lying is
NOT an alternative and if we, as American citizens, start allowing
people to pick and choose what questions that have to be answered
truthfully, and what questions it is OK to lie about, then we've lost
one of our most basic and important rights - the right to a fair trial.
It is clear Clinton is guilty of committing perjury. The question comes
down to the circumstances around the act and what appropriate consequences
there should be (or should have been).
To me, being guilty of committing perjury based on lying about a blow-job is
not as big of a deal as, for example, lying about reasons for attacking and
even overthrowing other countries.
One was given under oath, the other wasn't. One is punishable by
imprisonment, the other by not getting re-elected.
LOL... you want to punish someone *more* for lying about a blow-job than
someone else lying about reasons for attacking and even overthrowing other
countries.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason McNorton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 08:45:30 PM |
|
|
In article <BD4A91D7.5D8FA%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, snit-
nospam@cableone.net says...
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-6CE825.14020419082004@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com on 8/19/04
2:02 PM:
In article <BD4A3B8A.5D85F%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-C188FC.10591719082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 8/19/04 10:57 AM:
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
That's really it in a nutshell. The blow-job is irrelevant, the nature
of the question asked by the prosecution is irrelevant*, and the person
on the stand basically has two alternatives: answer truthfully or stand
upon their 5th Amendment rights, and decline to answer at all. Lying is
NOT an alternative and if we, as American citizens, start allowing
people to pick and choose what questions that have to be answered
truthfully, and what questions it is OK to lie about, then we've lost
one of our most basic and important rights - the right to a fair trial.
It is clear Clinton is guilty of committing perjury. The question comes
down to the circumstances around the act and what appropriate consequences
there should be (or should have been).
To me, being guilty of committing perjury based on lying about a blow-job is
not as big of a deal as, for example, lying about reasons for attacking and
even overthrowing other countries.
One was given under oath, the other wasn't. One is punishable by
imprisonment, the other by not getting re-elected.
LOL... you want to punish someone *more* for lying about a blow-job than
someone else lying about reasons for attacking and even overthrowing other
countries.
Try and prove saddam didn't throw out inspectors and fire on our planes,
both breaking treaty which allowed us to break the truce from the first
gulf war. I dare you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 08:48:00 PM |
|
|
"Jason McNorton" <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote in
MPG.1b8f13b1c88958b1989879@news-40.giganews.com on 8/19/04 6:45 PM:
In article <BD4A91D7.5D8FA%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, snit-
nospam@cableone.net says...
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-6CE825.14020419082004@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com on 8/19/04
2:02 PM:
In article <BD4A3B8A.5D85F%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-C188FC.10591719082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 8/19/04 10:57
AM:
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
That's really it in a nutshell. The blow-job is irrelevant, the nature
of the question asked by the prosecution is irrelevant*, and the person
on the stand basically has two alternatives: answer truthfully or stand
upon their 5th Amendment rights, and decline to answer at all. Lying is
NOT an alternative and if we, as American citizens, start allowing
people to pick and choose what questions that have to be answered
truthfully, and what questions it is OK to lie about, then we've lost
one of our most basic and important rights - the right to a fair trial.
It is clear Clinton is guilty of committing perjury. The question comes
down to the circumstances around the act and what appropriate consequences
there should be (or should have been).
To me, being guilty of committing perjury based on lying about a blow-job
is
not as big of a deal as, for example, lying about reasons for attacking and
even overthrowing other countries.
One was given under oath, the other wasn't. One is punishable by
imprisonment, the other by not getting re-elected.
LOL... you want to punish someone *more* for lying about a blow-job than
someone else lying about reasons for attacking and even overthrowing other
countries.
Try and prove saddam didn't throw out inspectors and fire on our planes,
both breaking treaty which allowed us to break the truce from the first
gulf war. I dare you.
Why?
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason McNorton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 09:05:09 PM |
|
|
In article <BD4AA660.5D926%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, snit-
nospam@cableone.net says...
"Jason McNorton" <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote in
MPG.1b8f13b1c88958b1989879@news-40.giganews.com on 8/19/04 6:45 PM:
In article <BD4A91D7.5D8FA%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, snit-
nospam@cableone.net says...
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-6CE825.14020419082004@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com on 8/19/04
2:02 PM:
In article <BD4A3B8A.5D85F%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-C188FC.10591719082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 8/19/04 10:57
AM:
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
That's really it in a nutshell. The blow-job is irrelevant, the nature
of the question asked by the prosecution is irrelevant*, and the person
on the stand basically has two alternatives: answer truthfully or stand
upon their 5th Amendment rights, and decline to answer at all. Lying is
NOT an alternative and if we, as American citizens, start allowing
people to pick and choose what questions that have to be answered
truthfully, and what questions it is OK to lie about, then we've lost
one of our most basic and important rights - the right to a fair trial.
It is clear Clinton is guilty of committing perjury. The question comes
down to the circumstances around the act and what appropriate consequences
there should be (or should have been).
To me, being guilty of committing perjury based on lying about a blow-job
is
not as big of a deal as, for example, lying about reasons for attacking and
even overthrowing other countries.
One was given under oath, the other wasn't. One is punishable by
imprisonment, the other by not getting re-elected.
LOL... you want to punish someone *more* for lying about a blow-job than
someone else lying about reasons for attacking and even overthrowing other
countries.
Try and prove saddam didn't throw out inspectors and fire on our planes,
both breaking treaty which allowed us to break the truce from the first
gulf war. I dare you.
Why?
Cause if you have those two things, or even one of them, you have a
legal war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 11:11:58 PM |
|
|
"Jason McNorton" <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote in
MPG.1b8f184fc46da02598987a@news-40.giganews.com on 8/19/04 7:05 PM:
In article <BD4AA660.5D926%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, snit-
nospam@cableone.net says...
"Jason McNorton" <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote in
MPG.1b8f13b1c88958b1989879@news-40.giganews.com on 8/19/04 6:45 PM:
In article <BD4A91D7.5D8FA%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, snit-
nospam@cableone.net says...
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-6CE825.14020419082004@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com on 8/19/04
2:02 PM:
In article <BD4A3B8A.5D85F%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-C188FC.10591719082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 8/19/04 10:57
AM:
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
That's really it in a nutshell. The blow-job is irrelevant, the nature
of the question asked by the prosecution is irrelevant*, and the person
on the stand basically has two alternatives: answer truthfully or stand
upon their 5th Amendment rights, and decline to answer at all. Lying is
NOT an alternative and if we, as American citizens, start allowing
people to pick and choose what questions that have to be answered
truthfully, and what questions it is OK to lie about, then we've lost
one of our most basic and important rights - the right to a fair trial.
It is clear Clinton is guilty of committing perjury. The question comes
down to the circumstances around the act and what appropriate
consequences
there should be (or should have been).
To me, being guilty of committing perjury based on lying about a blow-job
is
not as big of a deal as, for example, lying about reasons for attacking
and
even overthrowing other countries.
One was given under oath, the other wasn't. One is punishable by
imprisonment, the other by not getting re-elected.
LOL... you want to punish someone *more* for lying about a blow-job than
someone else lying about reasons for attacking and even overthrowing other
countries.
Try and prove saddam didn't throw out inspectors and fire on our planes,
both breaking treaty which allowed us to break the truce from the first
gulf war. I dare you.
Why?
Cause if you have those two things, or even one of them, you have a
legal war.
Can you support that claim?
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason McNorton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 11:17:34 PM |
|
|
In article <BD4AC81E.5D965%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, snit-
nospam@cableone.net says...
"Jason McNorton" <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote in
MPG.1b8f184fc46da02598987a@news-40.giganews.com on 8/19/04 7:05 PM:
In article <BD4AA660.5D926%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, snit-
nospam@cableone.net says...
"Jason McNorton" <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote in
MPG.1b8f13b1c88958b1989879@news-40.giganews.com on 8/19/04 6:45 PM:
In article <BD4A91D7.5D8FA%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, snit-
nospam@cableone.net says...
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-6CE825.14020419082004@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com on 8/19/04
2:02 PM:
In article <BD4A3B8A.5D85F%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-C188FC.10591719082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 8/19/04 10:57
AM:
I wholeheartedly agree. People seem to forget that it's OUR
responsibility to protect the system,too... each and every one of us.
To me, this is no different than saying so and so is guilty of breaking
the law before so and so has had their day in court... equally as
dangerous a ground to tread. That's why I go out of my way to educate
others. You start picking and choosing what to tell the truth on and
it's over.
That's really it in a nutshell. The blow-job is irrelevant, the nature
of the question asked by the prosecution is irrelevant*, and the person
on the stand basically has two alternatives: answer truthfully or stand
upon their 5th Amendment rights, and decline to answer at all. Lying is
NOT an alternative and if we, as American citizens, start allowing
people to pick and choose what questions that have to be answered
truthfully, and what questions it is OK to lie about, then we've lost
one of our most basic and important rights - the right to a fair trial.
It is clear Clinton is guilty of committing perjury. The question comes
down to the circumstances around the act and what appropriate
consequences
there should be (or should have been).
To me, being guilty of committing perjury based on lying about a blow-job
is
not as big of a deal as, for example, lying about reasons for attacking
and
even overthrowing other countries.
One was given under oath, the other wasn't. One is punishable by
imprisonment, the other by not getting re-elected.
LOL... you want to punish someone *more* for lying about a blow-job than
someone else lying about reasons for attacking and even overthrowing other
countries.
Try and prove saddam didn't throw out inspectors and fire on our planes,
both breaking treaty which allowed us to break the truce from the first
gulf war. I dare you.
Why?
Cause if you have those two things, or even one of them, you have a
legal war.
Can you support that claim?
What the hell?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 11:45:18 PM |
|
|
"Jason McNorton" <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote in
MPG.1b8f375968142b9998987f@news-40.giganews.com on 8/19/04 9:17 PM:
Try and prove saddam didn't throw out inspectors and fire on our planes,
both breaking treaty which allowed us to break the truce from the first
gulf war. I dare you.
Why?
Cause if you have those two things, or even one of them, you have a
legal war.
Can you support that claim?
What the hell?
Can you support the claim that one of those things would make the war legal?
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason McNorton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 11:50:06 PM |
|
|
In article <BD4ACFEE.5D975%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, snit-
nospam@cableone.net says...
"Jason McNorton" <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote in
MPG.1b8f375968142b9998987f@news-40.giganews.com on 8/19/04 9:17 PM:
Try and prove saddam didn't throw out inspectors and fire on our planes,
both breaking treaty which allowed us to break the truce from the first
gulf war. I dare you.
Why?
Cause if you have those two things, or even one of them, you have a
legal war.
Can you support that claim?
What the hell?
Can you support the claim that one of those things would make the war legal?
UN resolutions, you google it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 11:53:27 PM |
|
|
"Jason McNorton" <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote in
MPG.1b8f3efbb63d43c989880@news-40.giganews.com on 8/19/04 9:50 PM:
In article <BD4ACFEE.5D975%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, snit-
nospam@cableone.net says...
"Jason McNorton" <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote in
MPG.1b8f375968142b9998987f@news-40.giganews.com on 8/19/04 9:17 PM:
Try and prove saddam didn't throw out inspectors and fire on our planes,
both breaking treaty which allowed us to break the truce from the first
gulf war. I dare you.
Why?
Cause if you have those two things, or even one of them, you have a
legal war.
Can you support that claim?
What the hell?
Can you support the claim that one of those things would make the war legal?
UN resolutions, you google it.
I have looked at UN resolutions. Nothing I have found shows that the war
was legal.
Seems nothing you can find supports that idea either.
I am happy to leave it here unless you want to supply some evidence to the
contrary.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason McNorton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
20 Aug 2004 01:35:59 AM |
|
|
In article <BD4AD1D7.5D97A%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, snit-
nospam@cableone.net says...
"Jason McNorton" <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote in
MPG.1b8f3efbb63d43c989880@news-40.giganews.com on 8/19/04 9:50 PM:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
