1
   

Things i like about George.W.Bush

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 09:32 am
The environs of the White House are not sacrosanct, despite the contempt one might justifiably (as i do) hold for the low rent clown who did those things. The religiously fanatical supporters of the Shrub may consider 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to be a holy shrine, but it is a point of view which does not oblige the rest of us.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 09:52 am
Ticomaya wrote:
au1929 wrote:
Tico wrote
About Clinton
Quote:
his lack of morals is also a matter of record as he's an admitted adulterer.

Unless you are married to him what business is it of yours if he screwed around.

I suppose from the religious rights prospective adultery is worse than the unjust wars and the killing of thousands. Embarrassed


"Unjust" is your opinion ... as is, I suppose, whether the sitting president should commit adultery in the Oval Office, then lie about it.


Clinton lied. Bush lied. = Both lied. Which is the greater lie?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 09:52 am
Who considers the White House a "holy shrine"?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 09:52 am
Intrepid wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
au1929 wrote:
Tico wrote
About Clinton
Quote:
his lack of morals is also a matter of record as he's an admitted adulterer.

Unless you are married to him what business is it of yours if he screwed around.

I suppose from the religious rights prospective adultery is worse than the unjust wars and the killing of thousands. Embarrassed


"Unjust" is your opinion ... as is, I suppose, whether the sitting president should commit adultery in the Oval Office, then lie about it.


Clinton lied. Bush lied. = Both lied. Which is the greater lie?


Except Bush didn't lie.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 09:57 am
God, i think my sides are going to split . . . stop it, Tico, yer killin' me . . .
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 09:59 am
Is that your opinion Tico, or is there proof someplace that the rest of us missed?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 10:14 am
Intrepid wrote:
Is that your opinion Tico, or is there proof someplace that the rest of us missed?


As has been stated ad nauseum by many on this board, when you put out a thesis, you are expected to prove it. I can prove that Clinton lied; someone prove that Bush lied.

So, I do not think he lied, and probably won't until there is some proof that he did. Opinions of others that he did lie, do not qualify as proof.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 10:16 am
We could provide you with results from a lie detector test and you would probably refute that too.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 10:19 am
Ticomaya wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
There is no proof for those who's minds are made up against it.


And for those that fervently want to believe it, there is an abundance of "proof."


and the merry go round goes round.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 10:21 am
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We're captive on the carousel of time
We can't return we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and round
In the circle game
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 10:23 am
Intrepid wrote:
We could provide you with results from a lie detector test and you would probably refute that too.


Of course I would, and I would regardless of who was taking it. They are notoriously unreliable.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 10:26 am
Setanta wrote:
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We're captive on the carousel of time
We can't return we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and round
In the circle game


Oh, the buzzing of the bees, and the cigarette trees
The soda-water fountain...
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 10:30 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Is that your opinion Tico, or is there proof someplace that the rest of us missed?


As has been stated ad nauseum by many on this board, when you put out a thesis, you are expected to prove it. I can prove that Clinton lied; someone prove that Bush lied.

So, I do not think he lied, and probably won't until there is some proof that he did. Opinions of others that he did lie, do not qualify as proof.


Which lie are you referring to?
[*] Enron
[*] WMD's
[*] Social Security Funds
[*] DUI
[*] 9/11 Terrorist motives
[*] Computer Fraud
[*] etc. etc. etc.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 10:35 am
Intrepid wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Is that your opinion Tico, or is there proof someplace that the rest of us missed?


As has been stated ad nauseum by many on this board, when you put out a thesis, you are expected to prove it. I can prove that Clinton lied; someone prove that Bush lied.

So, I do not think he lied, and probably won't until there is some proof that he did. Opinions of others that he did lie, do not qualify as proof.


Which lie are you referring to?
[*] Enron
[*] WMD's
[*] Social Security Funds
[*] DUI
[*] 9/11 Terrorist motives
[*] Computer Fraud
[*] etc. etc. etc.


If you're suggesting he lied, you assert "the lie," and then try and provide proof.
0 Replies
 
not2know
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 10:54 am
Ticomaya wrote:


If you're suggesting he lied, you assert "the lie," and then try and provide proof.


Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all...

source
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 11:00 am
I replied, but the system froze before it got to the thread.

What I was posting was to the effect that you know as well as I do that it is very difficult to "prove" a lie unless the admition comes from the prevaricator's own lips or from photographic evidence. You indicated that you would believe a lie detector no matter who took it because they are unreliable. I take this to mean that you would not believe them. You claimed that Bill Clinton lied, but you did not indicate what he lied about or what proof you have to back up this claim. I doubt that this will go anywhere but except in circles with he said she said testimonials. I doubt very much that you will belief the link either.

http://hnn.us/articles/1506.html
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 11:05 am
not2know wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:


If you're suggesting he lied, you assert "the lie," and then try and provide proof.


Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all...

source


Then there is that minority who prefer to believe their leaders either flew planes into the Twin Towers, or were complicit in it, because that's what they want to believe.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 11:24 am
Intrepid wrote:
I replied, but the system froze before it got to the thread.

What I was posting was to the effect that you know as well as I do that it is very difficult to "prove" a lie unless the admition comes from the prevaricator's own lips or from photographic evidence. You indicated that you would believe a lie detector no matter who took it because they are unreliable. I take this to mean that you would not believe them. You claimed that Bill Clinton lied, but you did not indicate what he lied about or what proof you have to back up this claim. I doubt that this will go anywhere but except in circles with he said she said testimonials. I doubt very much that you will belief the link either.

http://hnn.us/articles/1506.html


---



Here you go:

Quote:
Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time - never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people.


That was Clinton on TV on January 26, 1998. Here's the VIDEO


Earlier, in a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit, Clinton swore under oath as follows:

Quote:
Deposition in the Jones sexual harassment lawsuit

January 17, 1998

(The full text of the deposition is also online.)

Q. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?

A. I don't recall, but as I said, when she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. She - it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. I don't have any specific recollections of what the issues were, what was going on, but when the Congress is there, we're working all the time, and typically I would do some work on one of the days of the weekends in the afternoon.

Q. So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening?

A. Yes, that's correct. It's possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That's possible.

. . .

Q. Have you ever met with Monica Lewinsky in the White House between the hours of midnight and six a.m.?

A. I certainly don't think so.

Q. Have you ever met -

A. Now, let me just say, when she was working there, during, there may have been a time when we were all - we were up working late. There are lots of, on any given night, when the Congress is in session, there are always several people around until late in the night, but I don't have any memory of that. I just can't say that there could have been a time when that occurred, I just - but I don't remember it.

Q. Certainly if it happened, nothing remarkable would have occurred?

A. No, nothing remarkable. I don't remember it.

. . .

Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?

A. No.

Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?

A. It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth.

Q. I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court.

. . .

A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her.


He also lied about the affair in an interview with Jim Lehrer, in a telephone interview with Roll Call, and an interview with NPR, all on January 21, 1998.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/whatclintonsaid.htm


Clinton also denied the affair with Lewinsky in a sworn affidavit he filed in the Paula Jones lawsuit.

---

Six months later, when it was clear his lies were catching up to him, he came clean. On August 17, 1998, after Lewinsky testified about their sexual encounters, Clinton testified before a grand jury and admitted to the affair. He also said the following on national TV:

Quote:
As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information. Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.

But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.

I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.


http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_441.html


As I said, Clinton is a self-admitted liar, and he lied under oath.
0 Replies
 
not2know
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 11:49 am
Ticomaya wrote:

Then there is that minority who prefer to believe their leaders either flew planes into the Twin Towers, or were complicit in it, because that's what they want to believe.


do you mean a conspiracy nut ?

Some of the most prominent political scandals in US history began as a
conspiracy theory and turned out to be true; Wikipedia
(www.wikipedia.com) lists some of these:


Conspiracy theories that turned out to be true
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 11:59 am
not2know wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:

Then there is that minority who prefer to believe their leaders either flew planes into the Twin Towers, or were complicit in it, because that's what they want to believe.


do you mean a conspiracy nut ?


Yes ... wacko conspiracy theorists.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/08/2025 at 02:54:40