What does everybody think about the soldier , shooting that?

Oliver North is a true American hero (Viet Nam) and patriot.

0 Replies

No, he was involved in one of the biggest coverup/scandals in American history, a despicable one at that. He is no patriot, sir!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, he was involved in one of the biggest coverup/scandals in American history, a despicable one at that. He is no patriot, sir!

Cycloptichorn

That he was and he is a patriot. A truly loyal soldier, taking one for the President and his CIC.

0 Replies

So what? A dog is loyal as well.

Loyalty is great, but so is a sense of right and wrong, and having the courage to tell the truth.

So as far as I'm concerned, his opinion on, well, anything is immaterial and insulting.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

when my dog howls at the moon, he's being a mystic, when he bites at the neighbors he's being loyal.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, he was involved in one of the biggest coverup/scandals in American history, a despicable one at that. He is no patriot, sir!

Cycloptichorn

That he was and he is a patriot. A truly loyal soldier, taking one for the President and his CIC.

I have heard such paeans to loyalty, placing it above ethics, but I hoped to never to hear as much in this country. Yes, a soldier on the battlefield swears his loyalty to his commanders, and he is bound by that loyalty. However, a soldier in a judicial hearing or congressional inquiry is bound by his civic duties--these are honesty, integrity, and respect for the laws of our country. Obstruction of a congressional inquiry and the destruction of documents flout these civic duties.

A true patriot knows not to hide behind the shield of loyalty while defying his ethical duties or the laws of his country. Remember, it was not blind loyalty to a leader that began our country; it was loyalty to ideals.

0 Replies

Well, in a war that is, by International Standards and law, regarded as an "illegal" war, are we surprised to see actions that make the Geneva Convention look like a menu at Denny's?
Guantanamo Bay, Abu Gharib prison...and now this? You can't expect the subordinates of an army to take a moral high road above the institution that brought them there under false pretenses.
The *shocking* news from iraq that rears it's ugly head every so often is (by estimation only), a small piece of the injustice pie.
If the "coalition of the willing" claim to appeal to a higher moral order than these "insurgents", "rebels", or "fanatics" do, then in each and every instance, they have to live what they preach.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So what? A dog is loyal as well.

Loyalty is great, but so is a sense of right and wrong, and having the courage to tell the truth.

So as far as I'm concerned, his opinion on, well, anything is immaterial and insulting.

Cycloptichorn

What are your thoughts about Bill Clinton?

0 Replies

Lol - not sure that murder and nookie are on the same page - but there you go....cute point.

0 Replies

Oh that! well horseback riding, you know, can do that.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Lol - not sure that murder and nookie are on the same page - but there you go....cute point.

I think the he was analogizing North's obstruction of Congressional proceedings and Clinton's perjury. Although I found Starr's behavior in Clinton's investigation less than meritorious, Clinton's perjury was unacceptable no matter the circumstances. I think that Tico's analogy is therefore appropriate.

0 Replies

For the love of God he did not commit perjury. He was not ever convicted as such nor did he commit it. He said that he did not have sexual relations which was technically true according to the Paula Jones Attorney's own definition of the term "sexual relations". In other words according to their definition, oral sex is not sexual relations, so he did not commit perjury which is why he was never legally convicted of perjury.

0 Replies

Now there's a stretch.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

For the love of God he did not commit perjury. He was not ever convicted as such nor did he commit it. He said that he did not have sexual relations which was technically true according to the Paula Jones Attorney's own definition of the term "sexual relations". In other words according to their definition, oral sex is not sexual relations, so he did not commit perjury which is why he was never legally convicted of perjury.

And thanks to Clinton, many teenagers girls are spared the guilt of having engaged in "sexual relations" in giving BJs to their boyfriends.

0 Replies

Hey revel, I love ya man but don't get your hands dirty with that line of defense...it's beneath you.

0 Replies

There's another stretch Twisted Evil

:wink:

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Now there's a stretch.

Has he gotten his law license back yet?

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Now there's a stretch.

Has he gotten his law license back yet?

Nope, suspended for 5 years.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Has he gotten his law license back yet?

No.

0 Replies

Thanks. Guess it's not like he's gonna actually be using it LOL.

0 Replies

What does everybody think about the soldier , shooting that?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know