WHEN HITCH WAS WRONG........he was disastrously wrong

Aoxomoxoa said:
He should never have been put in that situation in the first place, it was only because Gingrich and his bagman Kenneth Starr needed something, anything to get him.
Click to expand...
Nice spin, but no cigar....


Paula Jones brought the sexual harassment charge against Clinton....not Gingrich and not Starr.....
No one forced the president to lie under oath..... U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright granted summary judgment to Clinton in Jones v. Clinton.

On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones
[/URL]

Intentionally false testimony in a lawsuit is called PERJURY.......
 
bravo said:
Nice spin, but no cigar....


Paula Jones brought the sexual harassment charge against Clinton....not Gingrich and not Starr.....
No one forced the president to lie under oath..... U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright granted summary judgment to Clinton in Jones v. Clinton.

On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones


Intentionally false testimony in a lawsuit is called PERJURY.......
Click to expand...

Reagan lied about Nicaragua, the Contras and Iran, so why aren't you agitated about that?
 
bravo said:
Nice spin, but no cigar....


Paula Jones brought the sexual harassment charge against Clinton....not Gingrich and not Starr.....
No one forced the president to lie under oath..... U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright granted summary judgment to Clinton in Jones v. Clinton.

On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones
[/URL]

Intentionally false testimony in a lawsuit is called PERJURY.......
Click to expand...

The same Paula Jones who sells herself to the highest bidder, sells the juicy bits of Clinton on the Internet for $2.00 per tantalizing information? The one who got plastic surgery and her 15 minutes of fame because of Clinton?
 
Rana said:
Yes, but when you view the sampling of this board what is your conclusion?
Click to expand...


For every Darla, Christie, onceler, zappa, and Rana, etc. there is a counterpart......they just don't see themselves as others see them.....they see themselves through rose-colored glasses.....using terms like neo-con, invoking the Nazis, the KKK, calling everyone that don't agree with them vile names is just natural and normal for them....
it only bothers them when they are on the receiving end of the insults......and then they see it as re-affirming the justification for their name calling in the first place.....
 
Rana said:
The same Paula Jones who sells herself to the highest bidder, sells the juicy bits of Clinton on the Internet for $2.00 per tantalizing information? The one who got plastic surgery and her 15 minutes of fame because of Clinton?
Click to expand...


Again, irrelevant.......Clinton was GUILTY of PERJURY.......( lying under oath )
 
bravo said:
For every Darla, Christie, onceler, zappa, and Rana, etc. there is a counterpart......they just don't see themselves as others see them.....they see themselves through rose-colored glasses.....using terms like neo-con, invoking the Nazis, the KKK, calling everyone that don't agree with them vile names is just natural and normal for them....
it only bothers them when they are on the receiving end of the insults......and then they see it as re-affirming the justification for their name calling in the first place.....
Click to expand...

Nice try, but no cigar for you.

My initial point wasn't about personal insults. It was about the way some conservatives, and a certain few on this board, spend so much time denigrating people over their race, religion, ethnicity, culture, intelligence, etc.
 
bravo said:
For every Darla, Christie, onceler, zappa, and Rana, etc. there is a counterpart......they just don't see themselves as others see them.....they see themselves through rose-colored glasses.....using terms like neo-con, invoking the Nazis, the KKK, calling everyone that don't agree with them vile names is just natural and normal for them....
it only bothers them when they are on the receiving end of the insults......and then they see it as re-affirming the justification for their name calling in the first place.....
Click to expand...


Well, you reap what you sow is all I can say, I dare you to show me where we start it. My insults ate usually a result of being insulted. I rarely see Christie give what she is given. I rarely see us being as foul mouthed in return to what is given us, but you just go ahead and believe we are even close to you who insult us inmost every post.
 
christiefan915 said:
Nice try, but no cigar for you.

My initial point wasn't about personal insults. It was about the way some conservatives, and a certain few on this board, spend so much time denigrating people over their race, religion, ethnicity, culture, intelligence, etc.
Click to expand...

He isnt reading his fellow conservatives posts if he thinks we give back what is dealt to us.
 
bravo said:
Again, irrelevant.......Clinton was GUILTY of PERJURY.......( lying under oath )
Click to expand...

Nope, I think it was consensual with Jones and she lied for the money and the fame, he recent action make that all too clear. I think most women threw themselves at him. I think she was bought and paid for!
 
bravo said:
Nice spin, but no cigar....


Paula Jones brought the sexual harassment charge against Clinton....not Gingrich and not Starr.....
No one forced the president to lie under oath..... U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright granted summary judgment to Clinton in Jones v. Clinton.

On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones
[/URL]

Intentionally false testimony in a lawsuit is called PERJURY.......
Click to expand...

Paula Jones was bought and paid for. Why do you think she filed her lawsuit three years after the alleged harassment happened and two days before the statute of limitations ran out?

Furthermore, the suit was dismissed. Clinton agreed to an out of court settlement.
 
bravo said:
Really ?...we import a lot oil from Bosnia , huh ?....Lybia is a big US supplier, is it ? And we're just shipping it in form Korea more than ever I presume......

You'll need to ask Obama why he don't send the marines to Somalia

You're a clip, Apple.....you're reality is only pleasant because its an alternate reality.....
Click to expand...

You're right. It's all humanitarian. I mean, when we compare Libya to North Korea it's obvious North Korean citizens have a much better life. We can tell just by looking at them. No overweight people there. They must have a good diet and exercise regularly while more than a few of those Libyans looked a little "pudgy" to me.

I guess I'm blinded by the good life. :(
 
Rana said:
Nope, I think it was consensual with Jones and she lied for the money and the fame, he recent action make that all too clear. I think most women threw themselves at him. I think she was bought and paid for!
Click to expand...

smartyass-graffiti-6.jpg
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
He should never have been put in that situation in the first place, it was only because Gingrich and his bagman Kenneth Starr needed something, anything to get him.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I never could figure how that idea works where one has to "incriminate" themselves in order to prove their innocence. Clinton was expected to divulge his dealings with Monica when questioned about his supposed sexual improprieties involving another woman. Let's say a man is accused of sexual improprieties and he's asked where he was on a certain night. If he was having an affair with a married woman would he be compelled to admit it or be accused of perjury? If, at the time in question, he was buying pot from his local dealer would he be compelled to admit that?
 
apple0154 said:
Exactly! I never could figure how that idea works where one has to "incriminate" themselves in order to prove their innocence. Clinton was expected to divulge his dealings with Monica when questioned about his supposed sexual improprieties involving another woman. Let's say a man is accused of sexual improprieties and he's asked where he was on a certain night. If he was having an affair with a married woman would he be compelled to admit it or be accused of perjury? If, at the time in question, he was buying pot from his local dealer would he be compelled to admit that?
Click to expand...
They didn't give a shit how they got him, what's ironic is Gingrich was the true misogynist!
 
bravo said:
Nice spin, but no cigar....


Paula Jones brought the sexual harassment charge against Clinton....not Gingrich and not Starr.....
No one forced the president to lie under oath..... U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright granted summary judgment to Clinton in Jones v. Clinton.

On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones
[/URL]

Intentionally false testimony in a lawsuit is called PERJURY.......
Click to expand...

The law shouldn't permit those type of questions. If a person is accused of bank robbery and he's asked where he was at the time would he be accused of perjury if he didn't admit he was robbing the local 7-11 at that exact time? Why should one be accused of perjury when answering the question would result in self-incrimination regarding an action that had no bearing on the case in question?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top