the proof Bush team Knew Iraq had no weapons in 2002

Dixie said:
Injustice to Paula Jones.

On the basis of Clintons comletely dishonest testimony, her case was dismissed on lack of evidence. She should have had the rights of ANY American, to have her case fairly adjudicated in a court of law, and that was denied to her by the direct lies of Bill Clinton, under oath, no less!

So, with Clinton... we essentially said... if you are an average American relying on the legal justice system, someone as powerful as a president, has the right to lie under oath to protect his political career, and this trumps your constitutional rights to due process.
Click to expand...



BULLSHIT, her case was not thrown out due to President Clinton's erronous testamony. You are such a LIAR!
 
Funny how the right turned this thread from why they are not upset at President Bush's lies about reasons for war...

TO more outrage about President Clintons lies about BJ's!
 
Cypress said:
I think it's troubling anytime our presidents wags his finger and lies in our face like Clinton did. Don't you?

You just said ten minutes ago that you didn't care about BJs. You only cared that he lied under oath. When are you going to settle on one story?


I don't care about the finger wagging. If he was having a consensual affair, he doesn't owe ME the truth about that - he owes his wife the truth.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know what I said, and I meant it. The blowjob didn't bother me, I understand why he would lie about it, but he didn't have to get in my face and wag his finger and lie about it, and he should have been held accountable for lying under oath about it.

You don't care that your president got on national television, looked you in the eye, wagged his finger in your face, and lied through his teeth? How much koolaid did you drink?
 
Dixie said:
Yeah, I know what I said, and I meant it. The blowjob didn't bother me, I understand why he would lie about it, but he didn't have to get in my face and wag his finger and lie about it, and he should have been held accountable for lying under oath about it.

You don't care that your president got on national television, looked you in the eye, wagged his finger in your face, and lied through his teeth? How much koolaid did you drink?
Click to expand...

You dont care that your president lied to you about Yellowcake Uranium and WMD? You dont care that your president lied to you about reasons for going to war?
 
Dixie said:
Injustice to Paula Jones.

On the basis of Clintons comletely dishonest testimony, her case was dismissed on lack of evidence. She should have had the rights of ANY American, to have her case fairly adjudicated in a court of law, and that was denied to her by the direct lies of Bill Clinton, under oath, no less!

So, with Clinton... we essentially said... if you are an average American relying on the legal justice system, someone as powerful as a president, has the right to lie under oath to protect his political career, and this trumps your constitutional rights to due process.
Click to expand...


Same thing under bush, how about gitmo prisoners ? And US citizens caught up in the "War on Terror" I am glad we agree that the gitmo prisoners should get due process.
 
You don't care that your president got on national television, looked you in the eye, wagged his finger in your face, and lied through his teeth?

You sound like a jealous spouse. Why do you think Clinton owes you the truth about a consensual affair he's having? You're not his girlfriend, Dixie. He owes the truth about that to his wife, not to ME. It's not a matter of public policy.
 
There was NO injustice done to Paula Jones. Dixie is making shit up again. Yes President Clinton may have lied, depending on the rules of the deposition, however PJ never suffered from it!
 
uscitizen said:
Same thing under bush, how about gitmo prisoners ? And US citizens caught up in the "War on Terror" I am glad we agree that the gitmo prisoners should get due process.
Click to expand...
To be fair to Dixie, he said "Average American", I don't think that those in GITMO even closely resemble that description.

I agree that they should have due process. I believe that such rights are a natural law. No man should be held without due process, without a full understanding of why they are held and real evidence of it that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that they are being held for true reasons.
 
Call Dixie out on his lies... and he starts ignoring you again. He is responding to others!
 
If he was having a consensual affair, he doesn't owe ME the truth about that -

There is also a matter of ethics here, and I think good ethics are an important attribute for the man we elect to the highest office in the land. Men who cheat on their wives, and more importantly, forsake their vows to God, are not men of very high moral character. Men who are accused of sexual assault on numerous women, to the most extreme degrees, are not generally considered any more than a scoundrel. Liberals think that's cool.

Yes, I can certainly understand lying about getting a blowjob from my barely legal intern, I just don't understand how a man of that character ever managed to be in that position of power. It didn't really bother me that he lied about it, more-so, that he did it to begin with. We might as well have elected Larry Flynt president, if that is the standard of ethics we accept.

Do you remember the phrase... "Character Matters!"?
I think it defines the difference between left and right, the argument over moral character, and moral character issues. To the left, moral character should be a personal judgement for the individual, and none of anyone elses business. To the right, moral character should be defined by society in establishment of acceptable moral boundaries and norms. Interestingly, this is where many Libertarians split to the left.

I didn't fault the sleazebag for lying about sticking his 54-year-old dick in babygirl's mouth... it was expected from his unethical ass. I did not approve of him lying under oath to a grand jury, or lying to me on TV with the finger-wagging denials, but again, I understand why he did. I felt that his actions caused injustice to Paula Jones, and denial of her Constitutional rights as an American, to due process. I felt that this action rose to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and warranted impeachment, and Congress agreed. I also felt he should have been removed from office, and Congress disagreed. Perhaps it was 'payback' for the Nixon pardon, perhaps it was the droning political rant of 'we must put this behind us and move forward' ...who knows?

The point still remains, it was an issue of character. Moral and ethical character, in the person we elect to the highest office of the land, and how important that actually is. Clinton is the best evidence ever, of how liberals will simply overlook issues of moral and ethical character, as long as he vetos the ban on partial birth!
 
Dixie said...

I felt that his actions caused injustice to Paula Jones, and denial of her Constitutional rights as an American, to due process
-------


Again I ask, HOW?


Was it juat a gut feeling, based on emotions?
 
Same thing under bush, how about gitmo prisoners ? And US citizens caught up in the "War on Terror" I am glad we agree that the gitmo prisoners should get due process.

I am all for giving any US citizen being held at Gitmo, his Constitutional due process! As Americans, we should always be guaranteed that right. Likewise, any legal American citizen, who has nothing to do with alQaeda or Islamofascist terror groups, should be afforded every Constitutional right under the law.
 
Dixie said:
Go study the case and see!
Click to expand...



You are the one making the allegation. CLearly her rights were NOT violated by his alleged lies. You are just making shit up as you go along.

You cant respond so you ignore or tell me to look it up.

YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL!
 
uscitizen said:
So It is good moral character to lie about why we need to invade and occupy a country Dixie?
Click to expand...


Nope, but that is your characterization of what happened. The facts do not conclude that Bush ever lied about anything, and he certainly didn't do so under oath. I know this is an ongoing argument, and the pinheads certainly hope to prove that Bush lied about something, but as of now, this has not been 'concluded' by anyone other than the koolaid-drinking pinheads.

Let's take a look at this a moment... Did Bush Lie? Well... I think we can reasonably assume Bush is not a pathological liar, if he were, some of his lies would have been 'proven' by now, and he would be history. So, aside from a pathological lie, any lie has to be based on some tenable justification to lie. In Clinton's case, it was to save his political career... same with Nixon... Well, the argument for Bush is, he lied to be able to take us to war with Iraq. The only problem is, this is not tenable, because Bush did not need to lie to take us to war, he could have gone to war on any number of grounds outlined in his authority as president. So, there is no tenable reason for Bush to have concocted a lie to take us to war in Iraq, it was not needed.
 
Wrong, Dixie, when Bush and his people knew full well that in order to take us to war there had to be a fear of Iraq in the harts of the American people. Bush was facing plenty of opposition to the war, the international community was against it (for good reason) and many of his fathers higher ups were voicing opposition to the war. Bush knew if he could not scare the people they would not stand for the war!
 
What about Genifer Flowers, got anything for your LIE about that?

See the peoblem is Dixie does not understand what it means to make up false allegations without evidence... some would call that a lie, EINSTEIN!


Einstein, what do your baseless allegations say about your own moral cheractor?
 
Dixie said:
Nope, but that is your characterization of what happened. The facts do not conclude that Bush ever lied about anything, and he certainly didn't do so under oath. I know this is an ongoing argument, and the pinheads certainly hope to prove that Bush lied about something, but as of now, this has not been 'concluded' by anyone other than the koolaid-drinking pinheads.

Let's take a look at this a moment... Did Bush Lie? Well... I think we can reasonably assume Bush is not a pathological liar, if he were, some of his lies would have been 'proven' by now, and he would be history. So, aside from a pathological lie, any lie has to be based on some tenable justification to lie. In Clinton's case, it was to save his political career... same with Nixon... Well, the argument for Bush is, he lied to be able to take us to war with Iraq. The only problem is, this is not tenable, because Bush did not need to lie to take us to war, he could have gone to war on any number of grounds outlined in his authority as president. So, there is no tenable reason for Bush to have concocted a lie to take us to war in Iraq, it was not needed.
Click to expand...

As Jarod said, wrong. Bush had to come up with a sales pitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top