PDA

View Full Version : The party of Pelosi- the hypocrisy never ends.


Bill Parcells
06-11-2007, 02:23 PM
Vinod Gupta Gets Generous With Other People's Money

Posted Jun 11th 2007 9:30AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Scandal, Indian-American politics, Nancy Pelosi

What is entrepreneur Vinod Gupta thinking? First it is reported that the InfoUSA CEO has been funneling millions of dollars to Bill Cinton, supposedly for "consulting." Gupta paid the good ol' boy $.2.1 million, and has promised him an additional $1.2 million. Gupta has also been flying the Clintons around in his corporate jet.

Now we find out from Newsmax that Gupta has placed Paul Pelosi, son of Nancy Pelosi, on his payroll to the tune of $180,000 a year. What's strange about this is that--a) Pelosi is supposed to be a full-time employee but he already holds another job, as home loan office for Countrywide Loans in San Mateo, California, b) as a home mortgage loan officer, Pelosi would seem to have little knowledge or experience in the kid of database business that InfoUSA is, and c) Pelosi was hired as senior vice president on February 1, just a couple of weeks after Pelosi became speaker of the house.

"It's interesting, timing-wise," Paul Pelosi said. "I guess you always wonder why someone hires you, right?" Asked what exactly he does for InfoUSA, Pelosi says, "I'm very qualified at what I do. I work a lot of hours at it, and it's only been a couple months but in that short period of time I've been able to really work on some material projects which are coming forward." Which is basically a way of saying he does nothing.

Gupta is currently involved in a shareholder lawsuit which alleges that he misappropriated company funds for personal use and pet projects. In showering presents on these leading Democrats, Gupta apparently was not trying to get favors out of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. It seems he just wants to get his picture taken with important people. If this is what you need to show the folks back home that you've made it, Gupta, do it next time with your own money.
http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/06/11/vinod-gupta-gets-generous-with-other-peoples-money/



They All Really Are Corrupt, Aren't They?
Wednesday, June 06, 2007

On a day that Scooter Libby is sentenced to 30 months in jail for doing something, nobody knows what, the sentencing judge, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said.:

"People who occupy these types of positions, where they have the welfare and security of nation in their hands, have a special obligation to not do anything that might create a problem."

On this day, with that in mind, Ron Kessler of NewsMax, informs us that the son of the third most powerful person in the U.S. government, Paul Pelosi Jr., has been placed on the payroll of InfoUSA – even though he has no experience in the company's main business activities at a salary of $180,000 per year.

InfoUSA repeatedly rented marketing databases to unscrupulous persons who used the information to defraud the unsuspecting elderly, investigators found.

The company is also under fire in a shareholder lawsuit which alleges that (major Clinton backer Vinod) Gupta is appropriating company funds for personal use and his political pet projects. Shareholder critics are furious that Gupta had InfoUsa pay former President Bill Clinton $2.1 million in "consulting fees" since he left the White House, with another $1.2 million promised.


Gupta has also spent roughly $1 million of InfoUsa funds to provide corporate jet flights for both President Clinton and his wife Hillary.


Pelosi's son Paul acknowledged he has also been taking trips on corporate jets provided by Info USA.

This is the same Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has promised an Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, an act that would prohibit House members from accepting gifts and travel from lobbyists or from organizations that employ lobbyists.

I guess the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act won't apply to an ex Democrat President, a junior Democrat Senator from NY, or the son of a House Democrat Speaker.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/178/7785/corrupt.asp?wid=178&nid=7785

Amnorix
06-11-2007, 02:29 PM
Not even reading your post, I respond:

...whereas Republicans are never, ever hypocritical.

Politics IS hypocrisy. Get used to it. It will reduce your stress levels.

Ultra Peanut
06-11-2007, 02:32 PM
On a day that Scooter Libby is sentenced to 30 months in jail for doing something, nobody knows whatGreat grammar, and totally objective to boot! Now that's what I call a respectable news source.

Bill Parcells
06-11-2007, 02:35 PM
Not even reading your post, I respond:

...whereas Republicans are never, ever hypocritical.

Politics IS hypocrisy. Get used to it. It will reduce your stress levels.
Well, I think if the tables were turned, somebody would be having an extravagant press conference in front of the capitol calling for someones head. I have not seen any press conferences lately about this.

noa
06-11-2007, 02:38 PM
Well, I think if the tables were turned, somebody would be having an extravagant press conference in front of the capitol calling for someones head. I have not seen any press conferences lately about this.

It sucks, but the truth is that politicians' relatives get sweet gigs all the time. Its not admirable, but it happens a lot. That doesn't mean Pelosi is justified in carrying on the tradition, but I think the reason no one is calling a press conference is that this is just more business as usual (shamefully so).

jAZ
06-11-2007, 02:45 PM
Unless I'm missing something, this seems worthy of investigation.

Logical
06-11-2007, 03:25 PM
I am not sure when lying under oath became a questionable crime, evidently it is not a crime when a Republican does it. Seriously how can anyone question that Scooter commited a crime?

As to the other assertion, giving a politicians relative a job is not a crime, it is just a common and disgusting practice for both parties. Maureen Reagan anybody? Ron Reagan Jr. anybody both of these two got gigs because of their name and fame by being related to the President. How about Billy Carter, do you really think Billy Beer would have been sold without the relationship to Carter?

LOCOChief
06-11-2007, 03:46 PM
I am not sure when lying under oath became a questionable crime, evidently it is not a crime when a Republican does it. Seriously how can anyone question that Scooter commited a crime?

As to the other assertion, giving a politicians relative a job is not a crime, it is just a common and disgusting practice for both parties. Maureen Reagan anybody? Ron Reagan Jr. anybody both of these two got gigs because of their name and fame by being related to the President. How about Billy Carter, do you really think Billy Beer would have been sold without the relationship to Carter?

Your kidding right, I don't go to the DC forum much so I'm not sure, but you did just ask how anyone can question if Scooter commited a crime, you really believe this?

You believe that she was undercover?

jAZ
06-11-2007, 03:51 PM
You believe that she was undercover?
Ugh.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak

Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment

By Joel Seidman
Producer
NBC News
Updated: 1:24 p.m. MT May 29, 2007
WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

StcChief
06-11-2007, 03:58 PM
Damn DnF's

Logical
06-11-2007, 07:32 PM
Your kidding right, I don't go to the DC forum much so I'm not sure, but you did just ask how anyone can question if Scooter commited a crime, you really believe this?

You believe that she was undercover?

The crime was lying to the grand jury, why does no one remember that.

Pitt Gorilla
06-11-2007, 07:38 PM
Your kidding right, I don't go to the DC forum much so I'm not sure, but you did just ask how anyone can question if Scooter commited a crime, you really believe this?

You believe that she was undercover?
I'm pretty sure perjury is a crime. And no, that is not his "kidding."

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 09:18 PM
I am not sure when lying under oath became a questionable crime....Your memory can NOT be that bad. All you have to do is think about it for a moment....come on, you KNOW you can finish the sentence:

"Lying under oath became a "questionable" crime, when...."

Yup. That's right. And they said, "it doesn't matter"...."he shouldn't have had to answer those questions anyway"....."but, it's understandable for him to lie about that".....

The precedent was set; I didn't like it then....and I still don't like it.

Perjury is a crime. And those who commit perjury should be punished. Period.

But, you can't have a double-standard....and hope to maintain any credibility on the issue. Yet, many liberals try....:rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure perjury is a crime. And no, that is not his "kidding."
Only if it involves a Republican, apparently.... :shake:

Logical
06-11-2007, 09:39 PM
Your memory can NOT be that bad. All you have to do is think about it for a moment....come on, you KNOW you can finish the sentence:

"Lying under oath became a "questionable" crime, when...."

Yup. That's right. And they said, "it doesn't matter"...."he shouldn't have had to answer those questions anyway"....."but, it's understandable for him to lie about that".....

The precedent was set; I didn't like it then....and I still don't like it.

Perjury is a crime. And those who commit perjury should be punished. Period.

But, you can't have a double-standard....and hope to maintain any credibility on the issue. Yet, many liberals try....:rolleyes:

Only if it involves a Republican, apparently.... :shake:

Much as I dislike Clinton he did not perjure himself in front of a Grand Jury, this is not equivelent.

Pitt Gorilla
06-11-2007, 09:54 PM
Only if it involves a Republican, apparently.... :shake:To whom are you referring? Who said that?

mlyonsd
06-11-2007, 09:57 PM
Term limits.

Cochise
06-11-2007, 09:57 PM
:eek:

Fishpicker
06-11-2007, 10:07 PM
Much as I dislike Clinton he did not perjure himself in front of a Grand Jury, this is not equivelent.

he most certainly did perjure himself. at that time I was pretty enamored with B.C. Clinton's perjury was the one thing that defeated the illusion (for me anyway) Billy is a lying sack o' s***.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 10:08 PM
To whom are you referring? Who said that?

I'm not suggesting YOU are one of them, though it wouldn't surprise me....

But there are PLENTY of people who didn't/don't see the harm in a particular prominent Democrat committing perjury 8-9 years ago.....but think that Libby's offense is somehow more compelling. It's nothing more than a hypocritical double standard. I found/find BOTH cases equally offensive. Many seem to think in one instance it wasn't a big deal, but now....all of a sudden...."they" are outraged by Libby.

Selective outrage is pathetically transparent in such instances.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 10:09 PM
Much as I dislike Clinton he did not perjure himself in front of a Grand Jury, this is not equivelent.

And you have just destroyed any remaining credibility you have on this issue. The book is closed. :shake:

Logical
06-11-2007, 10:16 PM
And you have just destroyed any remaining credibility you have on this issue. The book is closed. :shake:

Seriously Kotter, he perjured himself to Congress but as far as I know he did not perjure himself in a court of law, so legal precedent could not have been set.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 10:25 PM
Seriously Kotter, he perjured himself to Congress but as far as I know he did not perjure himself in a court of law, so legal precedent could not have been set.No. You are wrong. He perjured before a grand jury, that was convened in the Paula Jones lawsuit....as part of Starr's attempt to establish a "pattern of behavior" to support the sexual harrasment claims by Jones. A case, BTW that his lawyers would "settle" "out of court" for more than $750,000....to make "go away."

Logical
06-11-2007, 10:29 PM
No. You are wrong. He perjured before a grand jury, that was convened in the Paula Jones lawsuit....as part of Starr's attempt to establish a "pattern of behavior" to support the sexual harrasment claims by Jones.

I guess I missed that. Thanks for the info.

Pitt Gorilla
06-11-2007, 10:33 PM
I'm not suggesting YOU are one of them, though it wouldn't surprise me....

But there are PLENTY of people who didn't/don't see the harm in a particular prominent Democrat committing perjury 8-9 years ago.....but think that Libby's offense is somehow more compelling. It's nothing more than a hypocritical double standard. I found/find BOTH cases equally offensive. Many seem to think in one instance it wasn't a big deal, but now....all of a sudden...."they" are outraged by Libby.

Selective outrage is pathetically transparent in such instances.Perhaps you could provide some specific examples of people saying that perjury only matters for Republicans and not Democrats. Although it is interesting that your only outrage seems to be against nameless, faceless "people" who, according to you, claim that perjury only matters to one party.

I'm reminded of someone who actually doesn't find both cases equally offensive and wants another way to attack the other side. I'm not suggesting YOU would actually do this, though it wouldn't surprise me...

jAZ
06-11-2007, 10:34 PM
No. You are wrong. He perjured before a grand jury, that was convened in the Paula Jones lawsuit....as part of Starr's attempt to establish a "pattern of behavior" to support the sexual harrasment claims by Jones. As case, BTW that his lawyers would "settle" for more than $750,000....to make "go away."
Proving Clinton actually committed perjury didn't happen and was unlikely. He was exceptionally careful to choose his language in such a way as to not put himself at risk.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 10:36 PM
I guess I missed that. Thanks for the info.

You are welcome. Unfortunately, you aren't the only one who missed it.

However, not knowing.... is better than being ideologically and philosophically disengenuous, like many who claim....."it wasn't proven/it was just about a blowjob/he was punished" bullshit that hypocritical Bush haters who want to see Libby "pay" but weren't willing to hold "their" guy accountable when the tables were turned.

We may disagree often, but I wouldn't expect that type of hypocritical bullshit from you.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 10:38 PM
Proving Clinton actually committed perjury didn't happen and was unlikely. He was exceptionally careful to choose his language in such a way as to not put himself at risk.

And YOU are just full of shit, and you know it. Only assholes like you refuse to admit he didn't commit perjury. If he didn't; Libby sure as hell didn't. We just never got a real JURY to hear the Clinton case, unfortunately.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 10:40 PM
Perhaps you could provide some specific examples of people saying that perjury only matters for Republicans and not Democrats. Although it is interesting that your only outrage seems to be against nameless, faceless "people" who, according to you, claim that perjury only matters to one party.

I'm reminded of someone who actually doesn't find both cases equally offensive and wants another way to attack the other side. I'm not suggesting YOU would actually do this, though it wouldn't surprise me...

I work with MANY of these nameless and faceless people....and I see similar folks, like jAZ (surprise, surprise) here all the time.

FTR, I DO find both equally offensive. It's the hypocrisy that sickens me.

Logical
06-11-2007, 10:40 PM
You are welcome. Unfortunately, you aren't the only one who missed it.

However, not knowing.... is better than being ideologically and philosophically disengenuous, like many who claim....."it wasn't proven/it was just about a blowjob/he was punished" bullshit that hypocritical Bush haters who want to see Libby "pay" but weren't willing to hold "their" guy accountable when the tables were turned.

We may disagree often, but I wouldn't expect that type of hypocritical bullshit from you.

Nope, curious did his being President save him from being sentenced, what were the grounds for a lack of punishment?

I am amazed I missed this, I guess I was hung up on the lying to Congress thing.

Pitt Gorilla
06-11-2007, 10:43 PM
I work with MANY of these nameless and faceless people....and I see similar folks, like jAZ (surprise, surprise) here all the time.

FTR, I DO find both equally offensive. It's the hypocrisy that sickens me.Really? Hypocrisy is more sickening than perjury?

jAZ
06-11-2007, 10:43 PM
...assholes like you...
So did Bush lie us into war?

Cochise
06-11-2007, 10:43 PM
'Would he have been convicted of perjury by whatever legal body would have eventually come to bear' and 'Did he lie in his deposition' are entirely different questions. Denial of the latter doesn't even pass the laugh test, IMO.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 10:45 PM
Nope, curious did his being President save him from being sentenced, what were the grounds for a lack of punishment?

I am amazed I missed this, I guess I was hung up on the lying to Congress thing.
Technically, he "could" have been prosecuted after he left office. Trying a "sitting President" would've been Constitutionally "iffy." However, the public was tired of the whole thing.....and many thought the impeachment should have sufficed for "punishment," even though the Senate "trial" was much less a trial....than mere political theater.

FWIW, the Republicans went WAY overboard to impeach him over it IMO; they SHOULD have waited to file charges after he left office....and see what a real jury would have done (FTR, there were....at the time.....over 100 people serving jail-time in federal penitentiaries for committing perjury "about sex" IIRC.) By the end the Republicans had pissed so many people off, they were smart to simply...."let it go."

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 10:48 PM
So did Bush lie us into war?

According to liberals.....like you, yes. However, in the real world....lies involve intent to deceive, which certainly is defensible in Bush's case....but laughable in Clinton's case. Otherwise, they are misstatements.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 10:51 PM
Really? Hypocrisy is more sickening than perjury?

I find both sickening. But I'm big on EQUAL justice and due process. So, yeah....hypocrisy is particularly appalling in circumstances such as these, for me. It's why the OJ case was so disturbing to me. And Paris Hilton....until the judge fixed that bullshit.

Cochise
06-11-2007, 10:57 PM
Technically, he "could" have been prosecuted after he left office. Trying a "sitting President" would've been Constitutionally "iffy." However, the public was tired of the whole thing.....and many thought the impeachment should have sufficed for "punishment," even though the Senate "trial" was much less a trial....than mere political theater.

FWIW, the Republicans went WAY overboard to impeach him over it IMO; they SHOULD have waited to file charges after he left office....and see what a real jury would have done (FTR, there were....at the time.....over 100 people serving jailtime in federal penitentiaries for committing perjury "about sex" IIRC.) By the end the Republicans had pissed so many people off, they were smart to simply...."let it go."

I don't really know what you mean here, they didn't let it go, they played it out and not enough people voted for it.

I think the right course of action was followed. He gave intentionally false testimony under oath. There are machines of law specifically designed to deal with that situation. They weren't trying to send him to prison, they were trying to remove him from office.

Braincase
06-12-2007, 06:37 AM
I say we investigate/audit all of 'em, starting with the ones that have invested the most in brib.. I mean, er.. "specialized contacts".

I doubt that 180,000 bucks is anywhere near the top of the list.

Bill Parcells
06-12-2007, 06:56 PM
June 5

Pensacola News Journal, on how congressional Democrats have been slow in delivering their campaign promises:

The Democrats in Congress rode to victory last year in large part by promising to clean up the ethical mess the Republicans had created.

Voters had come to view Republicans and lobbyists as connected at the hip, a campaign gift to the Democrats.

But the Republicans also alienated voters with their abuse of earmarks - appropriations specifying spending for specific districts and projects. The infamous "bridge to nowhere" became the symbol of congressional arrogance.

How have the Democrats done in fulfilling their promises?

The slate is mixed.

Last month, Democrats finally came through with some solid lobbying reform. Especially strong was passage of rules requiring that lobbyists who "bundle" campaign contributions have to identify the donors. This was a hard pill to swallow for many Democrats who depend on bundling to raise cash.

Unfortunately, they did not address another time-honored way of cashing in - retired (or defeated) members of Congress becoming lobbyists. A proposal to double - to two years - the restriction on former members lobbying Congress was defeated, leaving that door open.

They did, however, bar members from pressuring lobbying firms to hire only members of their party - one favorite tactic of the GOP leadership.

So, call it a mixed success, with some props to the Democratic leadership for facing down lobbyists and some of their own members on bundling reform, even though it doesn't really hinder the cash flow.

But Democrats have not done themselves proud on earmarks.

Despite their promises to smash open the pork barrel and stop hiding members' projects, the Democrats are bypassing their own House rules to let earmarks remain shrouded in the technical mists of the budget.

They are doing it by keeping earmarks out of the budget until the very end, when critics will have little or no time to shine a light on the next bridge to nowhere.

This is no small matter. Something like 36,000 earmarks have been proposed in the next budget. In 2005, when Republicans were running the show, earmarks totaled almost $19 billion.

Democrats promised to cut that in half. But it sounds as if the pressure from members eager to feed at the trough is causing the reform to be sidetracked.

It demonstrates the pressure members feel to "deliver" to the people back home. If that's what a member's career depends on, then shame on the voters back home - us.

But it would be nice to see members of Congress finding value in going back home to "deliver" the news of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget.

The Democrats promised much, but so far have delivered less.
link (http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070606/APN/706061485)

Bill Parcells
06-12-2007, 06:58 PM
Keep earmarks where public can eye them

June 8, 2007
When they took office in January, Democrats made a great show of adopting rules to rein in Congress' rampant pork barrel practices, requiring that projects earmarked for federal dollars -- and their sponsors -- are well-publicized. The idea was that subjecting the projects to public scrutiny would weed out the worst abuses -- such as the infamous $223 million "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. But Democrats in the House seem to be blowing their first opportunity to demonstrate they mean business.

Last week the AP reported that Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), the head of the House Appropriations Committee, instructed his colleagues to keep spending bills free of earmarks until the fall, when House and Senate negotiators will craft the final bills. But adding the pork at such a late hour would prevent most lawmakers from challenging projects, because the House-Senate compromise bills can't be amended and debate is limited. Obey said the delay is necessary because his committee has been deluged with 36,000 earmark requests and has not had time to screen them due to more pressing matters, including the Iraq war spending bill. He said he wanted to make "doggone sure" every project receives the committee's scrutiny and said he remains committed to the new rules and to cutting earmarks in half.

Obey may turn out to be the fierce opponent of pork that he says he is. But it would be a mistake for him to make the process less transparent. "This is not more sunlight," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). "This is actually keeping earmarks secret until it's too late to do anything about it." And other critics take issue with Obey's contention that the committee is in the best position to weed out bad earmarks. "Who appointed him judge and jury of earmarks?" asked Tom Schatz,president of Citizens Against Government Waste.

For an example of why public scrutiny is important, look no further than a report in Thursday's New York Times. It described how Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), the sponsor of that infamous "bridge to nowhere," slipped a provision into a 2006 spending bill that directed $10 million to a road that couldn't be much further from Alaska -- in Fort Myers, Fla. The local congressman said he didn't even know about the earmark. The road will benefit a real estate developer who helped raise money for Young's campaign.

RELATED STORIES
• This time, liberation of Paris is no cause for national pride
That's the kind of pork that transparency would likely eliminate. More openness is supposed to make lawmakers propose only those earmarks that are easy to defend, or force them to withdraw projects that don't stand up to public scrutiny. If the House Democratic plan does anything to reduce public scrutiny, then it represents a step backward in the battle against pork.

link (http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/418947,CST-EDT-edits08a.article)

Baby Lee
06-12-2007, 07:08 PM
As to the other assertion, giving a politicians relative a job is not a crime, it is just a common and disgusting practice for both parties. Maureen Reagan anybody? Ron Reagan Jr. anybody both of these two got gigs because of their name and fame by being related to the President. How about Billy Carter, do you really think Billy Beer would have been sold without the relationship to Carter?
You think the bigwigs at Billy Beer have the oversight concerns that this Info USA has?
Must've missed where Bill Beer got a no-bid K to provide troops with barley pop.

:p

Baby Lee
06-12-2007, 07:14 PM
Nope, curious did his being President save him from being sentenced, what were the grounds for a lack of punishment?

I am amazed I missed this, I guess I was hung up on the lying to Congress thing.
1. jAZ does have a technical point. Clinton was asked 'is there a sexual relationship,' to which he replied no, which in it's most reductive sense could be arguably true as she was not blowing him athe moment he answered the question.
2. He escaped punishment because we lost enthusiasm. He was still popular. People didn't understand the issues. Some thought he was entrapped. Maintaining the dignity of the office and 'national healing' sublimated full and vigorous prosecution of the charges.

Baby Lee
06-12-2007, 07:17 PM
Really? Hypocrisy is more sickening than perjury?
How do you get that?
He said both instances were offensive. It was the additional offense of hypocrisy that pushed him to sickened.
Like if Dane, given his vigorous defense of Paris Hilton found out someone on here had a suspended license following a DIU and continued to drive and got pulled over, etc. etc., and Dane was pushing for the book to be thrown at said someone. One can simultaneously decry the acts of Paris and the CP poster, AND be aggravated at Dane for such a hypocritical stance.

jAZ
06-12-2007, 08:18 PM
According to liberals.....like you, yes. However, in the real world....lies involve intent to deceive, which certainly is defensible in Bush's case....but laughable in Clinton's case. Otherwise, they are misstatements.
ROFL

So it comes down, not to anything objective... but that you *feel* Bush wasn't lying, but you *feel* Clinton was.

To quote a wise man from this very thread... "Only assholes like you refuse to admit he didn't (fill in the blank)".

Cochise
06-12-2007, 08:22 PM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9JE48XHKG64"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9JE48XHKG64" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Mr. Kotter
06-12-2007, 08:33 PM
ROFL

So it comes down, not to anything objective... but that you *feel* Bush wasn't lying, but you *feel* Clinton was.

To quote a wise man from this very thread... "Only assholes like you refuse to admit he didn't (fill in the blank)".

If you can't see the difference between foreign policy decisions made based on available, and vetted intelligence....that in retrospect seems misguided, AND bold face, intentional, in-your-face, Fukk-you-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on INTENTIONAL deceit....well, then you have bigger problems than I can fix. :shrug:

Live long and prosper. You're gonna need all the help you can get. :)

jAZ
06-12-2007, 08:33 PM
1. jAZ does have a technical point. Clinton was asked 'is there a sexual relationship,' to which he replied no, which in it's most reductive sense could be arguably true as she was not blowing him athe moment he answered the question.
Wouldn't you agree that the Bush administration was similarly careful in their duplicitous speaking about the case for invading Iraq before the war?

Baby Lee
06-12-2007, 08:40 PM
ROFL

So it comes down, not to anything objective... but that you *feel* Bush wasn't lying, but you *feel* Clinton was.

To quote a wise man from this very thread... "Only assholes like you refuse to admit he didn't (fill in the blank)".
You don't see a difference between saying what you believe to be true and turning out to be wrong, and saying what you know to be false.

Bush may have ignored misgivings and countervailing evidence on the basis of belief, but Clinton knew first person that what he was saying was metaphysically untrue.

mlyonsd
06-12-2007, 08:41 PM
Wouldn't you agree that the Bush administration was similarly careful in their duplicitous speaking about the case for invading Iraq before the war?

Trying to connect personal gratification with protecting the American public from another attack is such a stupid comparison to make I am embarrassed for you.

Mr. Kotter
06-12-2007, 08:43 PM
You don't see a difference between saying what you believe to be true and turning out to be wrong, and saying what you know to be false.

Bush may have ignored misgivings and countervailing evidence on the basis of belief, but Clinton knew first person that what he was saying was metaphysically untrue.

Damn, BL. You said, much more succinctly and accurately what I was attempting to convey to our simpleton friend. Thanks. :thumb:

I guess that's why you are the attorney, and I only try to edumacate today's youth. :(

mlyonsd
06-12-2007, 08:45 PM
You don't see a difference between saying what you believe to be true and turning out to be wrong, and saying what you know to be false.

Bush may have ignored misgivings and countervailing evidence on the basis of belief, but Clinton knew first person that what he was saying was metaphysically untrue.

Bingo.

Clinton just flat out lied and perjured himself.

Bush made a decision based on what was laid before him and he decided on a course of action. The two aren't even similiar.

Mr. Kotter
06-12-2007, 08:52 PM
[I'm envisioning jAZ scrambling to DU, MoveOn.org, talkingpoints.com, or TheNation....in search of some eloquent yet laugable response to buttress his position of "Bush REALLY lied; but Clinton, technically, didn't" load of crapola....]


LMAO LMAO LMAO

Pitt Gorilla
06-12-2007, 10:09 PM
How do you get that?
He said both instances were offensive. It was the additional offense of hypocrisy that pushed him to sickened.
Like if Dane, given his vigorous defense of Paris Hilton found out someone on here had a suspended license following a DIU and continued to drive and got pulled over, etc. etc., and Dane was pushing for the book to be thrown at said someone. One can simultaneously decry the acts of Paris and the CP poster, AND be aggravated at Dane for such a hypocritical stance.See post #35.

patteeu
06-12-2007, 10:13 PM
So did Bush lie us into war?

No.

Mr. Kotter
06-12-2007, 10:15 PM
See post #35.

I refuse to think you are truly THIS dense. Think for yourself, man; read. Comprehension is good.

patteeu
06-12-2007, 10:27 PM
1. jAZ does have a technical point. Clinton was asked 'is there a sexual relationship,' to which he replied no, which in it's most reductive sense could be arguably true as she was not blowing him athe moment he answered the question.


That would be true except for the fact that there was an agreed upon definition for "sexual relationship" in that deposition and it included the following:

"Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; "

According to Monica's testimony as reported by the special prosecutor in his final report, Clinton and Monica had 9 experiences together described in the following way:

On all nine of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts. He touched her genitals, both through her underwear and directly, bringing her to orgasm on two occasions. On one occasion, the President inserted a cigar into her vagina. On another occasion, she and the President had brief genital-to-genital contact.

Now, I'm here to tell you that it's a pretty rare situation when you bring a girl to orgasm without an "intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire" of that girl, but believe it or not, jAZ's entire, preposterous defense of Clinton relies on the supposed inability of a prosecutor to prove Clinton's intent. As if he just intended to give her a medical exam or something. ROFL

The links to this stuff can be found in a thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3827245) where jAZ laid out his super duper perjury defense of Clinton. I'm still laughing.

patteeu
06-12-2007, 10:38 PM
Nope, curious did his being President save him from being sentenced, what were the grounds for a lack of punishment?

I am amazed I missed this, I guess I was hung up on the lying to Congress thing.

The President actually did end up facing some punishment. In what was effectively a plea arrangement, Clinton agreed to admit that he knowingly gave misleading testimony, he relinquished his law license for 5 years, and he paid a $25,000 fine in return for an end to the Whitewater probe without a threat of charges for perjury.

Here is what Clinton had to say about his testimony:

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House.

Apparently Clinton is more certain that his statements were false than jAZ. LMAO

jAZ
06-12-2007, 10:40 PM
... believe to be true ....

Bush may have ignored misgivings and countervailing evidence on the basis of belief...
That's a leap of faith.

Mr. Kotter
06-12-2007, 10:43 PM
That's a leap of faith.

And yet you continue to insist on giving a guy a pass.... who said the following, and was punished by the legal system for his lie.....
"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House.

How precious....

ROFLROFLROFL

jAZ
06-12-2007, 10:45 PM
[I'm envisioning jAZ scrambling to DU, MoveOn.org, talkingpoints.com, or TheNation....in search of some eloquent yet laugable response to buttress his position of "Bush REALLY lied; but Clinton, technically, didn't" load of crapola....]


LMAO LMAO LMAO
You don't pay attention do you. They both did the same thing.

Mr. Kotter
06-12-2007, 10:48 PM
You don't pay attention do you. They both did the same thing.
Oh yeah? Bush's 'case' that you claim....has been adjudicated and punished for his "lies?"

I'm sure he'll be offering $750,000 to settle the lawsuits against him, too....heh.

LMAO LMAO LMAO

You are, again, purely and simply FOS. Again, I say. ROFL

jAZ
06-12-2007, 10:49 PM
You don't see a difference between saying what you believe to be true and turning out to be wrong, and saying what you know to be false.

Bush may have ignored misgivings and countervailing evidence on the basis of belief, but Clinton knew first person that what he was saying was metaphysically untrue.
Clinton was asked 'is there a sexual relationship,' to which he replied no, which in it's most reductive sense could be arguably true as she was not blowing him athe moment he answered the question.

Mr. Kotter
06-12-2007, 10:54 PM
Keep diggin', Justin.

Any remnants of credibility you EVER had here, are quickly flying out the window.....heh. Not much of loss, really. ;)

"Keep diggin', little feller!" ROFL

patteeu
06-12-2007, 11:07 PM
I'm guessing that jAZ keeps quoting Baby Lee because he thinks that shields him from being accused of making additional false statements. But Baby Lee's characterization of the question Clinton was asked isn't completely accurate. He may have been asked that question, but he was also asked the following question, according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/gperjury092498.htm):

"Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the court?"

To which he responded:

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

Deposition Exhibit 1 contained the agreed upon definition of "sexual relations" that was quoted in my previous post.

There is really no wiggle room for jAZ here.

The only theories under which Clinton would not be guilty of perjury afaics, are (1) a finding that the subject of sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky was not relevant to the case in which the testimony occurred or (2) the testimony of Monica Lewinsky in which she described Clinton touching her genitals for the purpose of arousal was false. I know I wouldn't want to have to count on either of those theories to get me an acquittal.

jAZ
06-12-2007, 11:24 PM
I'm guessing that jAZ keeps quoting Baby Lee because he thinks that shields him from being accused of making additional false statements. But Baby Lee's characterization of the question Clinton was asked isn't completely accurate. He may have been asked that question, but he was also asked the following question, according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/gperjury092498.htm):



To which he responded:



Deposition Exhibit 1 contained the agreed upon definition of "sexual relations" that was quoted in my previous post.

There is really no wiggle room for jAZ here.

The only theories under which Clinton would not be guilty of perjury afaics, are (1) a finding that the subject of sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky was not relevant to the case in which the testimony occurred or (2) the testimony of Monica Lewinsky in which she described Clinton touching her genitals for the purpose of arousal was false. I know I wouldn't want to have to count on either of those theories to get me an acquittal.
Kotter just bumped the other thread where we explicitly discussed the theories that provide the wiggle room that allowed Clinton to avoid perjury.

sportsman1
06-12-2007, 11:32 PM
Hypocracy and corruption is wherever you want to find it. I leave it at that.

patteeu
06-13-2007, 06:55 AM
Kotter just bumped the other thread where we explicitly discussed the theories that provide the wiggle room that allowed Clinton to avoid perjury.

ROFL Yeah, the one where you tried to say that no one could prove that Clinton intended to arouse Monica and that the legal system said he didn't commit perjury. That's not wiggle room, jAZ, that's delusion.

See what I mean, Zach?

Baby Lee
06-13-2007, 11:16 AM
ROFL Yeah, the one where you tried to say that no one could prove that Clinton intended to arouse Monica and that the legal system said he didn't commit perjury. That's not wiggle room, jAZ, that's delusion.

See what I mean, Zach?
So here I am, idly rubbing her vag, and the girl gets aroused!! Imagine my surprise!!

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 12:13 PM
So here I am, idly rubbing her vag, and the girl gets aroused!! Imagine my surprise!!

Maybe that's what Justin means by, "wiggle" room.... :hmmm: