|
Why is goat-book george insisting that he NOT be sworn in when he
appears before the 9-11 commission.? No oath means he can lie all he
wants without fear of perjury. Clinton was under oath when he
answered questions about the trifling monica scandal.
|
| |
| |
lbmhbf etc., sez:
"Why is goat-book george insisting that he NOT be sworn in when he
appears before the 9-11 commission.? No oath means he can lie all he
wants without fear of perjury. Clinton was under oath when he
answered questions about the trifling monica scandal..."
_________________________________
A president taking an oath to testify before a governmental commission? No
way. Executive priviledge takes precedent here, and no president is ever
going to give way on this power grab.
If he would lie, then fortunately, we have the Democrats who would
immediately point that out, so what sense it there in taking any oath? In
fact, the Democrats are going say he lied, even if he doesn't. So oath, or
no oath, he's guilty to them, anyway.
Clinton testified before a court of law. He was a principal in the
proceedings. He showed how much he thought about the oath business by just
flat out lying. There is one SOB who ought to in jail.
|
| |
| |
Docky Wocky wrote:
lbmhbf etc., sez:
"Why is goat-book george insisting that he NOT be sworn in when he
appears before the 9-11 commission.? No oath means he can lie all he
wants without fear of perjury. Clinton was under oath when he
answered questions about the trifling monica scandal..."
_________________________________
A president taking an oath to testify before a governmental commission? No
way. Executive priviledge takes precedent here, and no president is ever
going to give way on this power grab.
If he would lie, then fortunately, we have the Democrats who would
immediately point that out, so what sense it there in taking any oath? In
fact, the Democrats are going say he lied, even if he doesn't. So oath, or
no oath, he's guilty to them, anyway.
Clinton testified before a court of law. He was a principal in the
proceedings. He showed how much he thought about the oath business by just
flat out lying. There is one SOB who ought to in jail.
hehe no kidding. clinton was stupid to actually do it under oath. when
our boy lies about wmd (ok not lie just really stretch it hehe) at least
he doesnt do it under oath. thats why the dems will lose. they always
lose. you have to know when to lie and when to avoid the questions -
just look at cheney. everytime that rascal goes one meet the press he
still says the wmds are there. thats how you do it! who gives a #@($ if
you lie to tim russert! he isnt doing it in a courtroom. this is a moot
point, bush will win anyway. he controls the damn govt people. bc2004
all the way baby?
Johnny
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 05:15:25 GMT, "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net>
wrote:
lbmhbf etc., sez:
"Why is goat-book george insisting that he NOT be sworn in when he
appears before the 9-11 commission.? No oath means he can lie all he
wants without fear of perjury. Clinton was under oath when he
answered questions about the trifling monica scandal..."
_________________________________
A president taking an oath to testify before a governmental commission? No
way. Executive priviledge takes precedent here, and no president is ever
going to give way on this power grab.
If he would lie, then fortunately, we have the Democrats who would
immediately point that out, so what sense it there in taking any oath? In
fact, the Democrats are going say he lied, even if he doesn't. So oath, or
no oath, he's guilty to them, anyway.
Clinton testified before a court of law. He was a principal in the
proceedings. He showed how much he thought about the oath business by just
flat out lying. There is one SOB who ought to in jail.
Yes, clinton gave testimony in the paula jones trial, but he also
testified under oath to the whitewater investigators.
|
| |
| |
On 8 Mar 2004 21:03:04 -0800, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered
her boy friend) wrote:
Why is goat-book george insisting that he NOT be sworn in when he
appears before the 9-11 commission.? No oath means he can lie all he
wants without fear of perjury. Clinton was under oath when he
answered questions about the trifling monica scandal.
If the libeals had their way, it wouldn't matter. Why? They have
excused Mr. Clinton of lying under oath.
Just the fact that you want him under oath shows me and everyone else
that you expect more of Mr. Bush than you did of Mr. Clinton, and so
do we all........
Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
|
| |
| |
On 8 Mar 2004 21:03:04 -0800, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered
her boy friend) wrote:
If the libeals had their way, it wouldn't matter. Why? They have
excused Mr. Clinton of lying under oath.
apples and oeanges...
Just the fact that you want him under oath shows me and everyone else
that you expect more of Mr. Bush than you did of Mr. Clinton, and so
do we all........
enjoy your fictitious screenplay...
Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
during a binge
|
| |
| |
If Bushevic swore under oath, the Bible would be steaming.
lbmhbf etc., sez:
"Why is goat-book george insisting that he NOT be sworn in when he
appears before the 9-11 commission.? No oath means he can lie all he
wants without fear of perjury. Clinton was under oath when he
answered questions about the trifling monica scandal..."
_________________________________
A president taking an oath to testify before a governmental commission? No
way. Executive priviledge takes precedent here, and no president is ever
going to give way on this power grab.
If he would lie, then fortunately, we have the Democrats who would
immediately point that out, so what sense it there in taking any oath? In
fact, the Democrats are going say he lied, even if he doesn't. So oath, or
no oath, he's guilty to them, anyway.
Clinton testified before a court of law. He was a principal in the
proceedings. He showed how much he thought about the oath business by just
flat out lying. There is one SOB who ought to in jail.
|
| |
| |
Lying under oath is a crime.Lying to the press is just plain old bull;-#@($.
Mind your manners.
Docky Wocky wrote:
hehe no kidding. clinton was stupid to actually do it under oath. when
our boy lies about wmd (ok not lie just really stretch it hehe) at least
he doesnt do it under oath. thats why the dems will lose. they always
lose. you have to know when to lie and when to avoid the questions -
just look at cheney. everytime that rascal goes one meet the press he
still says the wmds are there. thats how you do it! who gives a #@($ if
you lie to tim russert! he isnt doing it in a courtroom. this is a moot
point, bush will win anyway. he controls the damn govt people. bc2004
all the way baby?
Johnny
|
| |
| |
xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered her boy friend) wrote in message news:<780ea958.0403082103.4837e1b6@posting.google.com>...
Why is goat-book george insisting that he NOT be sworn in when he
appears before the 9-11 commission.? No oath means he can lie all he
wants without fear of perjury. Clinton was under oath when he
answered questions about the trifling monica scandal.
That didn't stop Clinton from lying all he wanted without fear of perjury.
Jim
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:20:40 GMT, "copertopkiller"
<coppertop@killer.net> wrote:
apples and oeanges...
See? Another apology and "pass" for Mr. Clinton. Forget that he was
under oath in a federal courthouse.
Just the fact that you want him under oath shows me and everyone else
that you expect more of Mr. Bush than you did of Mr. Clinton, and so
do we all........
enjoy your fictitious screenplay...
during a binge
Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:20:40 GMT, "copertopkiller"
<coppertop@killer.net> wrote:
See? Another apology and "pass" for Mr. Clinton. Forget that he was
under oath in a federal courthouse.
Uh no. It is pointing out that the example you use as a gauge is not on the
same scale. 9/11 and its investigation doesn't equate to bjgate. I hope you
understand now. <snicker>
Just the fact that you want him under oath shows me and everyone else
that you expect more of Mr. Bush than you did of Mr. Clinton, and so
do we all........
Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 01:34:12 GMT, "copertopkiller"
<coppertop@killer.net> wrote:
Uh no. It is pointing out that the example you use as a gauge is not on the
same scale. 9/11 and its investigation doesn't equate to bjgate. I hope you
understand now. <snicker>
The reason why we have laws is so that you don't make these
judgements. Lying is unlawful. Period. They have this system so that
sycophants like yourself don't give out passes.
Clinton was lying. Provable. Under oath. Just lied.
Mr Bush has yet to be proven any lie, much less under oath.
Getting truthful testimony from witness is the cornerstone of our
judicial system. You don't seem to see the long term effects to us all
for giving out passes just because you think it was kinda OK.
Just the fact that you want him under oath shows me and everyone else
that you expect more of Mr. Bush than you did of Mr. Clinton, and so
do we all........
enjoy your fictitious screenplay...
Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
during a binge
Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
|
| |
| |
On 9 Mar 2004 13:55:43 -0800, somd_jim2002@yahoo.com (Jim) wrote:
xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered her boy friend) wrote in message news:<780ea958.0403082103.4837e1b6@posting.google.com>...
That didn't stop Clinton from lying all he wanted without fear of perjury.
Jim
Please don't bring up clinton. I get teary-eyed just thinking about
how good things used to be with all that peace and prosperity billy
gave us.
|
| |
| |
lbmhbf splutters:
"Please don't bring up clinton. I get teary-eyed just thinking about
how good things used to be with all that peace and prosperity billy
gave us..."
________________________________
Please don't bring up Clinton...Please don't bring up Clinton...Oh, Please,
massa Docky, Please don't bring up Clinton!
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:49:12 GMT, "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net>
wrote:
lbmhbf splutters:
"Please don't bring up clinton. I get teary-eyed just thinking about
how good things used to be with all that peace and prosperity billy
gave us..."
________________________________
Please don't bring up Clinton...Please don't bring up Clinton...Oh, Please,
massa Docky, Please don't bring up Clinton!
Hey pervo. Why do you fag republicans always give yourselves stupid
names like docky wocky? HAHAHAHA
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 01:34:12 GMT, "copertopkiller"
<coppertop@killer.net> wrote:
The reason why we have laws is so that you don't make these
judgements. Lying is unlawful. Period. They have this system so that
sycophants like yourself don't give out passes.
Clinton was lying. Provable. Under oath. Just lied.
Mr Bush has yet to be proven any lie, much less under oath.
The implications arising from Bush and his Administration not wanting to
testify are suspect of not wanting to be...?
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:47:30 GMT, "copertopkiller"
<coppertop@killer.net> wrote:
The implications arising from Bush and his Administration not wanting to
testify are suspect of not wanting to be...?
As with Mr. Clinton, if he is compelled to testify by being involved
in a criminal or civil case, then he should do so.
However, to say that by asserting his rights, that somehow he is
guilty when you have no evidence otherwise is simply dishonest or
stupid, you pick.
Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:47:30 GMT, "copertopkiller"
<coppertop@killer.net> wrote:
As with Mr. Clinton, if he is compelled to testify by being involved
in a criminal or civil case, then he should do so.
However, to say that by asserting his rights, that somehow he is
guilty when you have no evidence otherwise is simply dishonest or
stupid, you pick.
Again I must mention that Mr. Bush and his supporters wave banners about
being tough on terrorism and that National Security is his strong point yet
he isn't willing to even speak in front of the panel and has fought its
progression at each and every corner.
The only dishonest people here (and un-Patriotic) are the ones who are not
willing to testify under oath and who have forced the threat of subpoenas.
These threats have come from what the White House people call waffling when
describing the anti-Bush Kerry. Bush lies all the time, he isn't willing to
do it under oath and nobody seems to want to be so blunt in pointing this
out. After all, he is the CIC. <snicker>
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:08:38 GMT, "copertopkiller"
<coppertop@killer.net> wrote:
Again I must mention that Mr. Bush and his supporters wave banners about
being tough on terrorism and that National Security is his strong point yet
he isn't willing to even speak in front of the panel and has fought its
progression at each and every corner.
The only dishonest people here (and un-Patriotic) are the ones who are not
willing to testify under oath and who have forced the threat of subpoenas.
These threats have come from what the White House people call waffling when
describing the anti-Bush Kerry. Bush lies all the time, he isn't willing to
do it under oath and nobody seems to want to be so blunt in pointing this
out. After all, he is the CIC. <snicker>
It is common for those of the liberal persuasion to look myopically at
a problem and then to find that in the long run, the good was far
outweighed by the unintended consequences.
Public Schools are a fine example. In the zeal to promote race
eqalillity, the schools were chosen as the vehicle, at the expense of
actual learning. Since then, every whiney group has used the schools
to promote their agenda, again at the expense of education.
The once world-class education obtained at US public school is now
meaningless. I'm not saying that we didn't need to integrate. It is
the choice of the schools without regard for the long term effects.
In this instance, I believe one of the terrible consequences of the
President being pressured into oath would be the future ability for
any opposition party to utilize the courts as a political tool against
any enemy in power.
Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:08:38 GMT, "copertopkiller"
<coppertop@killer.net> wrote:
It is common for those of the liberal persuasion to look myopically at
a problem and then to find that in the long run, the good was far
outweighed by the unintended consequences.
Public Schools are a fine example. In the zeal to promote race
eqalillity, the schools were chosen as the vehicle, at the expense of
actual learning. Since then, every whiney group has used the schools
to promote their agenda, again at the expense of education.
The once world-class education obtained at US public school is now
meaningless. I'm not saying that we didn't need to integrate. It is
the choice of the schools without regard for the long term effects.
In this instance, I believe one of the terrible consequences of the
President being pressured into oath would be the future ability for
any opposition party to utilize the courts as a political tool against
any enemy in power.
Huh, amazing how you equate this panel as being partisan.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 19:35:37 GMT, "copertopkiller"
<coppertop@killer.net> wrote:
Huh, amazing how you equate this panel as being partisan.
Amazing (and naieve) that you don't
Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
|
| |
| |
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote in message news:<0q9t40dksae26o3pvamgv3neq81h6jsul5@4ax.com>...
Why is goat-book george insisting that he NOT be sworn in when he
appears before the 9-11 commission.? No oath means he can lie all he
wants without fear of perjury. Clinton was under oath when he
answered questions about the trifling monica scandal.
As I have written before the timing for the 9/11 "terrorist attack"
was a spin-off from a scene in the Bruce Willis movie "Mercury
Rising."
Bruce Willis was wont to use imagery of the Twin Towers in his flicks
ever since George W. Willig climbed the S. Tower in 1977, see in
particular his "Die Hard" flicks.
The planners of the 9/11 attack knowing this fact fashioned their
strategy to tie into this.
In the pilot episode of "Dark Skies" there is a scene with the mention
of a Willow Grade School and thus it was decided that GW would be in a
grade school classroom at the annointed hour, reading a Goat story to
the kiddies no less.
When the time comes for GW to testify before the 911 commission there
should be a Bruce Willis poster visible from the witness chair--he'll
get the message.
==================================================================
"History as we know it is a lie."
Tag line from "Dark Skies"
|
| |
| |
:The,Frog wrote:
<snip>
As with Mr. Clinton, if he is compelled to testify by being involved
in a criminal or civil case, then he should do so.
However, to say that by asserting his rights, that somehow he is
guilty when you have no evidence otherwise is simply dishonest or
stupid, you pick.
Do you assume that someone taking the fifth amendment may be trying to
hide something? I know I do.
JS
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 19:35:37 GMT, "copertopkiller"
<coppertop@killer.net> wrote:
Amazing (and naieve) that you don't
You need to show who in the commission has been so and how you've come to
this conclusion, not just recklessly claim it.
|
| |
| |
":The,Frog" <mee@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<9dbu405jov80dg589po9rhnd8f7uv3sv7q@4ax.com>...
As with Mr. Clinton, if he is compelled to testify by being involved
in a criminal or civil case, then he should do so.
However, to say that by asserting his rights, that somehow he is
guilty when you have no evidence otherwise is simply dishonest or
stupid, you pick.
Oh bull#@($. If bush was honest he'd insist that he be under oath.
|
| |
| |
|
