The Politics of Diversion!

guilt·y (gĭl'tē)
adj. guilt·i·er, guilt·i·est

1. Responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable: guilty of cheating; the guilty party.
2. Law Adjudged to have committed a crime.
3. Suffering from or prompted by a sense of guilt: a guilty conscience.
4. Hinting at or entailing guilt: a guilty smirk; a guilty secret. See Synonyms at blameworthy.

guilt'i·ly adv., guilt'i·ness n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
 
Dixie said:
My goodness bravo... What do you plan to do with your newly acquired Waterhead Ass? I suggest mounting it on your wall in the den... makes a great conversation piece!

:cof1: PWNED!
Click to expand...

fail.jpg
 
Dixie said:
Saying someone is guilty of perjury who admitted to lying under oath, is one thing... CORRECT!

Now shut the ever-loving fuck up, MORON!
Click to expand...

wrong. I can stand up and claim to be guilty of all sorts of crimes...but I am NOT until a court of law finds me guilty of those crimes.

now YOU shut the fuck up and go write your daughter some more love poetry, you sick perv.
 
maineman said:
wrong. I can stand up and claim to be guilty of all sorts of crimes...but I am NOT until a court of law finds me guilty of those crimes.

(redacted personal family insults which are a violation of board rules).
Click to expand...


No, if you admit you are guilty of committing perjury, you are uhm.... GUILTY of COMMITTING PERJURY! Simple as that, MORON!
 
Dixie said:
No, if you admit you are guilty of committing perjury, you are uhm.... GUILTY of COMMITTING PERJURY! Simple as that, MORON!
Click to expand...

So...uhm... is John Mark Karr GUILTY of murdering Jon Benet Ramsey?

He admitted that he was.

why isn't he in prison for it?

answer: because he is NOT GUILTY.
 
maineman said:
guilty is a legal term. Saying someone is guilty of perjury is a legal statement. Clinton is not guilty of perjury. That's a fact. sorry.
Click to expand...

Watermark said:
Guilty, the legal term = apples
Guilty, the literal legal definition = oranges
Click to expand...

maineman said:
saying someone is guilty of a crime is a legal distinction.

and why not stay away from calling me a moron?
Click to expand...

maineman said:
wrong. I can stand up and claim to be guilty of all sorts of crimes...but I am NOT until a court of law finds me guilty of those crimes.

now YOU shut the fuck up and go write your daughter some more love poetry, you sick perv.
Click to expand...

maineman said:
So...uhm... is John Mark Karr GUILTY of murdering Jon Benet Ramsey?

He admitted that he was.

why isn't he in prison for it?

answer: because he is NOT GUILTY.
Click to expand...

You go guys....as long as you two are trying to out-stupid each other, please continue....I like nothing better then to witness two of my favorite assholes make fools of themselves defending Clintons quilt....ESPECIALLY after the man himself ADMITS his guilt in unambitious terms...

and the John Mark Karr analogy is just too precious for words....it just oozes stupidity and proves a point better than anything I could say.....

So go for it guys.....might as well claim OJ didn't kill his wife because he was found 'not guilty'.....you two can take over helping him find "the real killer"...
:rolleyes::rolleyes::321::rolleyes::rolleyes: :lolup: :party::bleh:
 
Watermark said:
Guilty, the legal term = apples
Guilty, the literal legal definition = oranges
Click to expand...

Now really shit-4-brains....what part of this statement did you not understand....???
Does it make clear why their was no future criminalcharges against Clinton
Is it clear to you, Clinton cut a deal...we sometimes refer to this as a "plea bargin".....


CNN
January 19, 2001
Web posted at: 5:06 p.m. EST (2206 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit.

No one was out to put him in jail. The goal was to expose him as the despicable liar he finally admitted to being...
as we say in the Navy..."Mission accomplished"....
 
bravo said:
Now really shit-4-brains....what part of this statement did you not understand....???
Does it make clear why their was no future criminalcharges against Clinton
Is it clear to you, Clinton cut a deal...we sometimes refer to this as a "plea bargin".....


CNN
January 19, 2001
Web posted at: 5:06 p.m. EST (2206 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit.

No one was out to put him in jail. The goal was to expose him as the despicable liar he finally admitted to being...
as we say in the Navy..."Mission accomplished"....
Click to expand...

again.... admitting that you knowingly gave misleading testimony is not the same thing as being GUILTY of the crime of PERJURY....to be THAT takes a finding of GUILT by a court of law. Didn't happen.

Again... you stupid swab, words have meanings. You use them with all the finesse of a housepainter..and you always have. troglodyte.
 
bravo said:
So go for it guys.....might as well claim OJ didn't kill his wife because he was found 'not guilty'.....you two can take over helping him find "the real killer"...
Click to expand...

...and I really have no idea whether or not OJ killed his wife.... I think he probably did. What IS true, however, is that he is NOT GUILTY of the crime of murder.

idiot.

"unambitious" :lmao:
 
maineman said:
again.... admitting that you knowingly gave misleading testimony is not the same thing as being GUILTY of the crime of PERJURY....to be THAT takes a finding of GUILT by a court of law. Didn't happen.

Again... you stupid swab, words have meanings. You use them with all the finesse of a housepainter..and you always have. troglodyte.
Click to expand...

I just can't believe you're as stupid as you come across in print....

BEING GUILTY of a crime, ANY CRIME has nothing to do with the courtroom or the justice system.....being guilty of a crime simply means you did do the deed....a trial is irrelevant....a jury finding is irrelevant

If you rob a bank....YOU ARE A BANK ROBBER....thats a simple truth, a fact
ROBBING A BANK IS A CRIME ....thats a simple truth

IF YOU ROBBED A BANK and ROBBING A BANK IS A CRIME....you are guilty of a crime ... that is a simple truth

If you screw your neighbor's wife while you are married, you are guilty of adultery...a sin to some
If you drive over the speed limit, you are guilty of speeding...a crime
If you force someone to have sex with you, you are guilty of rape...a crime

The fact that you were not put on trial has no significance at all...

Now please do tell me how wrong I am...continue to play the fool..

Now to play with your words....
misleading testimony may not be lying at all....just misleading
and false testimony may not be perjury......if not material

So what ?

I've read the Clinton testimony .... I'm familiar with OJ's trial and evidence....

and they are both guilty of crimes....

One never brought before a jury and one jury finding OJ's guilt not proven...
irrelevant....
 
Would you claim OJ not guilty if he confessed to murdering his wife ?

You seem to think the jury is somehow Godlike and even his confession still means hes 'not guilty'....

Is a rapist, not tried or convicted, by some magic, not a rapist ?
Is a murderer, not tried or convicted, somehow no longer a murderer?

IDIOT.....if the shoe fits, wear it...

Maybe engine room fumes have addled your thinking...or you're just a complete and total hack...
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Would you claim OJ not guilty if he confessed to murdering his wife ?

You seem to think the jury is somehow Godlike and even his confession still means hes 'not guilty'....

Is a rapist, not tried or convicted, by some magic, not a rapist ?
Is a murderer, not tried or convicted, somehow no longer a murderer?

IDIOT.....if the shoe fits, wear it...

Maybe engine room fumes have addled your thinking...or you're just a complete and total hack...
Click to expand...

I would think OJ was not guilty of murder in the eyes of the law since a jury had found him not guilty. Similarly, I will consider Bill Clinton not guilty of the crime of perjury until such time as a court of law finds him guilty of that crime. Until they do, he is presumed innocent.
 
Dixie said:
How much longer will the political game of diversion work for the Democrats? Since the election, through a series of appointment blunders which would have likely caused impeachment rumblings for a republican administration, and a nosediving economy which seems destined to continue its spiral downward in spite of how many trillions the democrats extort from the American taxpayer to buy off their contributors, the political strategy has evolved, to simply divert America's attention to the problems, by focusing on those mean old right wingers! First it's Bush (their favorite target), then it's Rush, then Steele, then Cramer, then Ann Coulter, then Laura Ingrahm, and I guess when they run the gamut, they can start over again at the top of the list.

But how long will America be amused by this consistent bashing of the right? Polls now indicate a shift toward the Republicans for the 2010 elections, and if the dog and pony razzle-dazzle show in Washington continues, it may be a landslide year for Republicans. Clearly, this "new age of change" is not working out as well as promised, and with each passing day, it just gets more and more ridiculous. The Obama administration can't even seem to find a Democrat who's paid his taxes to appoint to the Treasury Department... as Democrats feign outrage over millions blown by AIG on bonuses to the bosses, which the Democrats paved the way for... and oops there goes another trillion.... oops there goes another trillion... tax bucks! You can almost hear the carnival music playing in the background when they speak!

Still, republicans seem to have a contingent of idiots who persist with the nonsense about "moderating" conservatism! Most recently, it's the new 'liberal darling' of the right, Meghan McCain. What will it take for these people to realize, conservatives are never going to 'win over' those on the left? As long as we attempt to appease and appeal to them, we will continue to slide away from conservative principles. Perhaps I could understand, if in the end, it meant some of the more 'moderate' liberals would switch over, but I honestly don't think there are any truly 'moderate' liberals left. Oh, there are certainly some who claim to be, but as we've seen, they are not going to vote for a conservative. So, we are chasing after a voter who doesn't really exist!

It's time for the Republican party to become responsible Conservatives again, and stop playing this stupid game with the Democrats. Let them keep shooting themselves in the foot, let them keep trying to demonize the right, and attacking talk radio, and focus on a clear concise conservative message. The votes are there, everybody in America hasn't lost their minds in the Glow-bama, and the American people are smart enough to see for themselves, what is happening under the leadership of the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Such a combination of projection and denial. Sad...
 
maineman said:
I would think OJ was not guilty of murder in the eyes of the law since a jury had found him not guilty. Similarly, I will consider Bill Clinton not guilty of the crime of perjury until such time as a court of law finds him guilty of that crime. Until they do, he is presumed innocent.
Click to expand...

Only a fucking blithering moron of the highest order or someone who is an unrepentant racist wouldn't accept the overwhelming evidence for reasonable doubt in the OJ criminal case.
 
maineman said:
I would think OJ was not guilty of murder in the eyes of the law since a jury had found him not guilty. Similarly, I will consider Bill Clinton not guilty of the crime of perjury until such time as a court of law finds him guilty of that crime. Until they do, he is presumed innocent.
Click to expand...

Why not just answer the questions instead of tap dancing .....
we all know OJ was not guilty in the eyes of the law but the questions were:

Would you claim OJ not guilty if he confessed to murdering his wife ?

Is a rapist, not tried or convicted, by some magic, not a rapist ?

....... Did the rape not take place because no one was found guilty in court?
....... Obviously if the rape took place, some one is a rapist, trial or no trial...


Is a murderer, not tried or convicted, somehow no longer a murderer?

.......... Same as above...

I might add, is a perjurer not a perjurer because he gets away with it ?

........... Same as above....

You see, perjury, rape and murder are deeds, actions...and committing the actions is what makes one guilty....juries and courts are irrelevant ....

If you want to "tap-dance with words"....please continue to make as ass of yourself, maybe Mottley will assist you...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top