posted
So, when someone pays the penalty for their crimes by getting out of jail, they should get all their rights back?
You're assuming that jail is the only way that one pays the penalty for their crimes.
And yet you and Rob and JeffR love bringing up Clinton's draft-dodging.
Clinton hated the military, and had no business being commander-in-chief on that and half a dozen other basies. Bush, OTOH, you can't even prove was AWOL.
I'm sure Omega, who doesn't want to leave a criminal in office, will lead the charge.
*sigh*
Let me see if I can make this simple enough that even your powers of obfuscation will be useless...
1) Anyone who commits a crime must pay the legally required penalty for that crime, whatever that penalty may be.
2) If a sitting president is required to pay for a crime, he must first be removed from office.
3) Bill Clinton committed a crime which he was legally required to pay for while he was President.
Conclusion: Bill Clinton should have been removed from office so that he might pay for his crime in the legally required manner.
The difference is in "3". Bush did NOT commit any crime which he is required to pay for during his term in office.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, thank goodness that loving the military is now a criteria for becoming president of the United States. I'll add that on my list of presidental musts right next to always wearing clean underwear and knowing who the president of Pakistan is.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh, and I almost forgot about Jeff's vaunted links.
For one, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that someone KNEW they were lying in a case of perjury, or any other case. You can't have evidence of what was going through someone's head when they said something. And yet people are still convicted of it. You have to effectively prove that an average person, short of mental deficiencies (which have to be proven by the defense), would likely have known it. Naturally, such proof is, to some degree, subjective, but any reasonable person would assume that he'd remember an affair.
Second, I really don't give a darn what the Supreme Court says any more. Any court who says that there is NO right to free exercize of religion protected by the Constitution has exactly zero credibility. Any reasonable definition of perjury would simply be violating the oath that one takes upon giving testimony. (Adultery has been similarly redefined, but not by any court of course.) Bill Clinton swore to tell the WHOLE TRUTH. He didn't. He therefore committed perjury, Supreme Court goodspeak or no.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:You have to effectively prove that an average person, short of mental deficiencies (which have to be proven by the defense), would likely have known it.
<low blow>It would therefore appear to be impossible for Bush to ever be convicted of perjury</low blow>
quote:Second, I really don't give a darn what the Supreme Court says any more.
Jeff'll need to clear some room in his .sig
[ February 26, 2002, 20:31: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
You've never once mentioned Clinton's draft-dodging? EVER? Why do I find that so hard to believe, given your general comments involving Clinton? And given those, I can make the very reasonable arguement that you believe Clinton's actions during the Vietnam War to be reprehensible. I'm sure I could dig up the appropriate quotes, but I get so tired of shifting through all your crap every time you decide to change the subject and yell 'libel!'
Regardless of this little ploy, your attempt at distraction has failed.
Now, listen. You've said you don't want to take at those links. Okay, fine.
But Omega avoids them like he'll burn to ashes. Why? Why are you scared, Omega?
Omega says that he swore to tell the whole truth, and by failing to do that, should be impeached.
Omega, if I asked you to tell the "whole truth", say, about the last time you watched TV, would you remember to mention the channel, the show, what you were wearing, who was with you in the room, what room you were in, what time of day it was?
You could say, "I watched JAG."
Is that the whole truth? More so then:
"I watched JAG on the USA Network at seven pm on Tuesday night in the family room in my house. My dad, younger brother, and the family cat was present."
The point is, the whole truth is a lot of stuff. It can get more detailed then that. It's the prosecution's job to ask those questions. If they fail to do so (which happened during the impeachment), then how can you blame the defendent?
What if I said you didn't tell the whole truth (in the above example), because you neglected to say you were eating a bowl of popcorn, had a glass of water, and were wearing no socks, shorts, and a blue t-shirt?
posted
The point is, the whole truth is a lot of stuff.
Yes, and it's up to the witness to determine whether something he knows is relevant, seeing as he's sworn to tell the WHOLE truth. Again, rather subjective, but it wouldn't be too hard to prove that Clinton knew things that any reasonable observer would see as relevant to the question at hand. Unless, of course, you'd care to argue that Clinton's a pathological liar or something.
Summary: Clinton was asked a question in relation to a case. He was sworn to give any and all relevant information to that question and that case. He failed to do so.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:He was sworn to give any and all relevant information to that question and that case. He failed to do so.
Wrong. The Prosectuion failed to ask questions which elaborated on said original question. It is their job to understand that what the witness may honestly believe to be the truth may not be, and to interograte to that point. If they fail to ask, it's THEIR fault.
For instance: is a wife alone in the master bedroom if her husband is in the adjoining bathroom? If she says 'yes' under the belief that the bathroom is seperate, is she deliberately lying? If she says 'no' under the belief that its part of the master suite, is she lying? It's the prosecution's job to get specific. If they fail to do so, it's pretty fucking stupid to call the witness a liar.
posted
Personally, I think Tom is getting funnier and funnier as time rolls on.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Bush did NOT commit any crime which he is required to pay for during his term in office
Oh good. At least that means you can't complain about Whitewater anymore. No, wait, don't tell me, you've never complained about Clinton and Whitewater, you've never even heard of Whitewater, and it's totally different anyway because Clinton is a crook and Bush isn't. 8)
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: I didn't know suing for libel was an attempt to duck accountability.
I didn't know DEFENDING YOURSELF in a wrongful-death suit was an attempt to duck accountability.
That's extremely poor logic. It demonstrates a clear "guilty until proven innocent" mode of thinking.
Since the article contained no useful data as to whether the premier is or is not actually guilty of anything, there's no way to determine whether the premier is honest or not.
The use of taxpayer funds is no indication... taxpayer funds are often used both to prosecute AND to defend politicians.
Unfortunately, the article does not present all the facts. This case is more than 3 years old, and it runs to this day. Evidence gathered in memos, letters, witnesses to a very secret meeting indicate that Harris himself wanted whatever means necessary to remove the protesters, even by force. He even ruled over the objections over the commander who was overseeing the affair.
Like Clinton, he is denying it. Denying it in front of a plethora of evidence.
Harris is resigning to avoid having criminal charges laid against him. He knows it. The public knows it.
This is ducking accountability. Not by just saying "I didn't do it" and leaving it at that, but by not having an independant party (Kenneth Starr?) looking at this matter.
Someone is dead. Harris ordered the protesters off the park by whatever means necessary (which is ILLEGAL in Ontario, interference in a police matter). This is either Obstruction of Justice or Criminal Negligence. And far worse than lying about a blowjob.
Harris is part of the Conservative party. Or because he is a lying SOAB does it make him a liberal?
[ February 27, 2002, 09:03: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Okay, that's much more helpful information.
Assuming the accusations can be proven (in court, don'cha know), yeah, the guy should be fried. On high heat.
Not that I have all that much sympathy for 'protesters' depending on what they're protesting, but using "any means necessary" against (we assume) unarmed nonviolent people is unacceptable.
A. Some people are Conservative. B. Some people are Liberal.
a. Some people are a$$holes. b. Some people aren't.
Sets of A or B will contain sets of a and b. The proportions remain unclarified.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Okay, that's much more helpful information. but using "any means necessary" against (we assume) unarmed nonviolent people is unacceptable.
Exactly. The protesters WERE unarmed when the shooting started.
quote: A. Some people are Conservative. B. Some people are Liberal.
a. Some people are a$$holes. b. Some people aren't.
Sets of A or B will contain sets of a and b. The proportions remain unclarified.
Now if Omega could realize that argument instead of matching B to a and A to b. Personal experience does not count.
[ February 27, 2002, 12:35: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
