Re: Jimmy Carter's Right! Presidents Should Not Be Liars.
Perry Neheum
"America" surely doesn't need 4 to 8 more years of congenital liar
HILLARY CLINTON in the White House with her red-faced, well-suckled,
dishonorable husband.
Ken
> told that could remotely compare to the lies of Ronnie
> Raygun, Bush 1, and your present miserable lying
> sonofabitch Bush 2
Oh, so we admit she IS a liar? I guess the dispute now is just how BIG
a liar she is!! So using your technique, if I compare Reagan to someone
else in history, he too would come out to be acceptable in your eyes??
Admit it, people do NOT like her for many reasons. Lying is just one
of them. You keep hoping that the over 50% of the population who said
they would not vote for her regardless of her opponent will change. Go
ahead, put her on the ticket with Obama. You will then have a racist
running with a lying, obsessively ambitious liberal as vice president.
That is like putting lipstick on a pig (no pun intended) and hoping
someone thinks it is a movie star.
>
> All presidents "lie"----except the hypocrisy, racism,
> greed, and self-serving lies of the last 3 republicans
> has exceeded any known quantity of sleaze.
>
> The Clintons can't touch those kinds of lies.
>
>> ===========================================================================
>
>
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 06:29:25 -0700 (PDT), Rightwinghank wrote:
> In defense of PAJAMATURDLET:
>
>
>
>> Ok Nick....I tried to make you see reason....
>> to see the light....and make you feel better......
>> and for all to stop the childish attacks....
>
>> but no....
>
>> Nick the nigger doesnt want to stop.
>> Nick the shut in angry emotional out of control nigger wants to
>> play...
>
>> Ok BOY......
>
>> If thats the way you want it.
Ken
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 08:48:38 -0600, Ken
> <k...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Nic...@Click.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 08:53:06 -0700 (PDT), Perry Neheum
>>> <perry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> AFTER 8 YEARS OF BUSH LIES and Cheney pipedreams and bullshit bubbles,
>>>> "America" surely doesn't need 4 to 8 more years of congenital liar
>>>> HILLARY CLINTON in the White House with her red-faced, well-suckled,
>>>> dishonorable husband.
>>> Except you cannot name ANY "lie" that the Clintons have
>>> told that could remotely compare to the lies of Ronnie
>>> Raygun, Bush 1, and your present miserable lying
>>> sonofabitch Bush 2
>> Oh, so we admit she IS a liar?
>
>
> ....and committed perjury to boot?
I am sorry, I had forgotten that she experienced shell shock in Bosnia
and is still suffering from it. Of course that was after "she testified
in 1996 about her work for Madison, Mrs. Clinton said on 99 occasions
that she was unable to recall what she might have done." Could that
have been an example of perjury???? America wants to know.
>
>
>> ====================================================================
>>
>> In the case of the two 1985 Israeli arms transfers, President Reagan
>> knew from the outset that he was acting in conflict with his own
>> announced policies of not rewarding hostage takers and of not selling
>> arms to nations sponsoring terrorism. He knew this activity was
>> politically and legally questionable.52 Two of his principal advisers,
>> Secretary of Defense Casper W. Weinberger and Secretary of State
>> Shultz, both opposed the initiative for those and other reasons.
>> Nonetheless, the President decided to proceed, and he directed
>> that Congress not be notified.53
>>
>> Reagan, Poindexter Trial Testimony,
Ken
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 13:48:30 -0600, Ken
> <k...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Nic...@Click.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 08:48:38 -0600, Ken
>>> <k...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nic...@Click.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 08:53:06 -0700 (PDT), Perry Neheum
>>>>> <perry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> AFTER 8 YEARS OF BUSH LIES and Cheney pipedreams and bullshit bubbles,
>>>>>> "America" surely doesn't need 4 to 8 more years of congenital liar
>>>>>> HILLARY CLINTON in the White House with her red-faced, well-suckled,
>>>>>> dishonorable husband.
>>>>> Except you cannot name ANY "lie" that the Clintons have
>>>>> told that could remotely compare to the lies of Ronnie
>>>>> Raygun, Bush 1, and your present miserable lying
>>>>> sonofabitch Bush 2
>>>> Oh, so we admit she IS a liar?
>>> Oh, so you admit that reagan was a bigger liar?
>>>
>>> ....and committed perjury to boot?
>> I am sorry, I had forgotten that she experienced shell shock in Bosnia
>> and is still suffering from it.
>
> against a political opponent using a sham set of
> "principles" that never seem to apply to your own
> choice of politician
>
> It's called HYPOCRISY
>
>> Of course that was after "she testified
>> in 1996 about her work for Madison, Mrs. Clinton said on 99 occasions
>> that she was unable to recall what she might have done." Could that
>> have been an example of perjury???? America wants to know.
>
Again I am sorry, for I thought telling a lie while under oath was
perjury? I guess YOU have a different definition of the word "Perjury."
>
> It may well be a very good case of evasion, or (I
> believe) "Stick it in your ass" replies to a smear
> campaign that had little or nothing to do with the
> original issue.
>
> OTOH, when Reagan said "I don't remember" 144+ times in
> sworn testimony, he was contradicted by FACTS and
> EVIDENCE to the contrary (by North, McFarland, and his
> appointees)---FORCING him to appear on TV and admit he
> LIED (under oath---which IS perjury)
I am not sure of the claim you made of 144 times saying "I don't
remember." But the man DID die with Alzheimer's. Could it be that he
truly did not remember??? On the other hand, Hillary is running for the
office of President of the U.S. Either she is lying (which is where I
would place my bet) or she is seriously impaired. Either of which would
disqualify her for the office.
>
> Any "lie" told by Clintons is/was not comparable and
> therefore a non-issue with Americans
I noticed that you did not address the fact that over 50% of the voting
public would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. Perhaps you
too have Alzheimer's??? I would suggest you seek medical attention, for
I do not see Hillary's free medical plan for those who do not want to
buy it becoming law.
>
> That it is for YOU----is self-evident testimony of what
> a stupid cocksucker you are for using a set of
> "principles" that have no basis in use.
Lastly, you can always tell when your opponent has been beaten in a
discussion. He starts using vulgarity because he has run out of facts.
As I said before: I would suggest you take ALL available laxatives,
for it is obvious that the shit level has reached your brain.
>
>> ======================================================
>
>
>
>> The Afghan Mujahadeens are the moral
>> equivalent of the Founding Fathers of America."
>
>> -Ronald Reagan
Lamont Cranston
That is not the definition of perjury.
Ken
Listed below is what YourDictionary.com says. If you disagree with my
definition, just what is YOUR defintion????
Synonyms · Law Definition · Usage Examples
perjury Definition
per·jury (pʉr′jə rē)
noun pl. -·ries
1. the willful telling of a lie while under lawful oath or
affirmation to tell the truth in a matter material to the point of inquiry
2. the breaking of any oath or formal promise
Lamont Cranston
The Model Penal Code, which has been adopted in some form by many states and
promulgated by the Commission on Uniform State Laws, also sets forth the
following basic elements for the crime of perjury: (1) a false statement is
made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2)
the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the
witness must have the Specific Intent to deceive.
>
>
> Synonyms · Law Definition · Usage Examples
>
>
> perjury Definition
>
> per·jury (pʉr′jə rē)
>
> noun pl. -·ries
Ken
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:09:44 -0600, Ken
> <k...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Lamont Cranston wrote:
>>> Ken wrote:
>>>> Nic...@Click.com wrote:
>
>
>>>>> "Sorry" isn't the word for somone who launches tirades
>>>>> against a political opponent using a sham set of
>>>>> "principles" that never seem to apply to your own
>>>>> choice of politician
>>>>>
>>>>> It's called HYPOCRISY
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course that was after "she testified
>>>>>> in 1996 about her work for Madison, Mrs. Clinton said on 99
>>>>>> occasions that she was unable to recall what she might have done."
>>>>>> Could that have been an example of perjury???? America wants to
>>>>>> know.
>>>>> No, that's not an example of "perjury", KENLOON
>>>> Again I am sorry, for I thought telling a lie while under oath was
>>>> perjury?
>>> That is not the definition of perjury.
>
>
>> Listed below is what YourDictionary.com says. If you disagree with my
>> definition, just what is YOUR defintion????
>
> oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial
> proceeding". It is sometimes called "lying under oath";
> that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom
> proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the
> truth.
>
> It is important that the false statement be material
> to the case at hand—that it Could affect the outcome of
> the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to
> lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in
> proving the case.
>
> Perjury can be used as a threat. Although it is a very
> serious crime under state and Federal laws, and while
> prosecutors often threaten prosecution, the number of
> actual prosecutions for perjury is tiny.
>
> Perjury prosecutions stemming from civil lawsuits are
> particularly rare. This is because it is difficult to
> prove that someone is intentionally misstating a
> material fact, rather than simply testifying honestly
> from faulty memory.
>
>
>> 1. the willful telling of a lie while under lawful oath or
>> affirmation to tell the truth in a matter material to the point of inquiry
>> 2. the breaking of any oath or formal promise
>
>
>
> 1) The "lie" in a CIVIL case of Jones v Clinton was
> NOT (repeat not) "material to her case".
>
> 2) the Denial of "sexual relations": a) bore no bearing
> on Jones's Case, b) was in response to a NON-LEGAL
> definition concocted by Jones Attorneys and Clinton
> made the denial believing he was correct.
>
> 3) The "Denial" was pointedly in reference to a
> NON-LEGAL definition of "Sexual relations" (offered by
> Jones attorneys)---Judge Wright explaining that Clinton
> "Had a right" to make that denial
>
> 4) Was a "RIGHT" accorded Clinton (to deny) after Jones
> was warned that he (clinton) had a LEGAL RIGHT to
> challenge a NEW definition of "sexual relations" in a
> court of law.
>
> OTOH, Reagan KNEW that North, etal, was selling arms to
> Iran, Knew that the operation was underway, Aided and
> abetted the subversion of constitutional government by
> withholding (lying in congressional testimony by his
> staff) and later ADMITTED knowing it was happening. He
> "Forgot" he knew all those things---until they were
> caught---at which time he went on TV and acknowledege
> HE DID KNOW.
Dear Click,
I hope for your sake that the free medical care that the Democrats want
passes, because you are apparently suffering from Attention Deficit
Disorder. I was talking about Hillary when I said:
"I am sorry, I had forgotten that she experienced shell shock in
Bosnia and is still suffering from it. Of course that was after "she
testified in 1996 about her work for Madison, Mrs. Clinton said on 99
occasions that she was unable to recall what she might have done."
Could that have been an example of perjury???? America wants to know."
Why you feel it necessary to change the subject, leave out a question
that was in reply to one of your points, or redefine the history books,
is anyone's guess. Mine is you cannot handle the "Here and now" and
want to go back to the time when people thought you knew what you were
talking about. Since you are a Hillary fan, it makes the puzzle easier
to understand for those of us the do not lie.
Lastly you seem to enjoy the episode where "Slick" took out his penis
and asked a resident of Arkansas to kiss it. In your neighborhood or
state that might be acting cool, but unfortunately not everyone,
everywhere thinks it is cool. Here they think it is perverted even if
you try to lie your way out of it by redefining the definition of a word.
Ken
being questioned about fraud in a case where she was a material person.
If she did not answer truthfully the questions while she was under
oath, she was committing perjury. Any person who answered 96 questions
with "I cannot recall" truthfully, in a case such as the one she was
involved, is not qualified to be president on that basis alone. I rest
my case.
Lamont Cranston
Damn, you are really stupid, aren't you? Not answering questions truthfully
while under oath is not the definition of perjury. I just provided you with
a definition. Read it again. There are three conditions that must be met
for perjury to occur. Answering untruthfully is one of them. That means
that there are two others. See if you can figure out what the other two
conditions are. Hint: they are listed above.
> Any person who answered 96
> questions with "I cannot recall" truthfully, in a case such as the
> one she was involved, is not qualified to be president on that basis
> alone.
On what basis have you determined that her 96 answers of "I cannot recall"
were untruthful? Please be specific. List all 96 questions and then
provide evidence that she lied when she said that she didn't recall.
> I rest my case.
You have no case, moron.
Ken
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:33:53 -0600, Ken
> <k...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Nic...@Click.com wrote:
>
>> in 1996 about her work for Madison, Mrs. Clinton said on 99
>> occasions that she was unable to recall what she might have done."
>> Could that have been an example of perjury???? America wants to
>> know.
>
> No, that's not an example of "perjury", KENLOON
>
>> Again I am sorry, for I thought telling a lie while under oath was
>> perjury?
>
>
>
>> Listed below is what YourDictionary.com says. If you disagree with my
>> definition, just what is YOUR defintion????
>
>
>>> Perjury is the "willful and corrupt taking of a false
>>> oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial
>>> proceeding". It is sometimes called "lying under oath";
>>> that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom
>>> proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the
>>> truth.
>
>
> You were talking about "Principles", "lying" and
> "perjury" as it "RELATES" to Hillary, and/or the
> CLintons.
>
> I merely pointed out to you that if you claim
> opposition candidate isn't "worthy", "trustworthy",
> "moral" or (is) "immoral"---THEN we MUST look to YOUR
> perception of said "principle" to ascertain whether you
> have a valid complaint----OR (as I've proven) merely a
> fucking bit of hypocritical nonsense. (which you
> decidedly have)
>
>> "I am sorry, I had forgotten that she experienced shell shock in
>> Bosnia and is still suffering from it. Of course that was after "she
>> testified in 1996 about her work for Madison, Mrs. Clinton said on 99
>> occasions that she was unable to recall what she might have done."
>> Could that have been an example of perjury???? America wants to know."
>
>
> a) Whether or not she "forgot" isn't relevant to the
> issue because "lying" by YOUR chosen politicians FAR
> EXCEEDS the gravity and egregiousness of the Clintons
>
> b) The "INFERENCE" that "something" was amiss in her
> "99 answers" vis-a-vis Whitewater, contains NO (repeat
> NO) corroborating evidence to support a claim she
> lied---that only YOUR willingness to accept "innuendo,
> conjecture, or unproven allegations" as "Fact" is basis
> enough to call you a chickenshit, idiot and
> mush-brained dolt willing to subvert your "principles"
> to make you feel better about your stupdiit y.
>
>> Why you feel it necessary to change the subject, leave out a question
>> that was in reply to one of your points,
>
>
> We MUST know YOUR definition of "moral", "honest" and
> "ethical" in order to ascertain whether you're merely
> accepting false allegations as fact when it's a person
> of adverse political persuasion----but all the while
> accepting LIES, EVASION, SUBVERSION, SUBORNING and
> PERJURY in your own politicians when it suits you
>
> I proved that the latter is the case---making you the
> laughing stock you are worse than before.
>
>> Lastly you seem to enjoy the episode where "Slick" took out his penis
>> and asked a resident of Arkansas to kiss it.
>
I hope you have newspapers where you live, for it was Paula Jones who
was asked to kiss his penis. It is YOU who constantly keeps going back
to the case and citing the definition he gave when questioned under
oath. I realize it is unfair to expect too much knowledge from a
liberal like you, but PLEASE try to keep up!!
>
> Consider:
>
> a) It was none of your business who or why someone
> kisses his dick whether asked for or not
It is every citizens' business when the person is being paid by the
citizens. You only demonstrate how biased you are when you contend
otherwise.
>
> b) It was a sad state of affairs that your political
> party took it upon themselves to use that to "punish" a
> president they could not beat
I would say his own party is punishing him right now by refusing to
accept his wife as their candidate.
>
> c) That it speaks of the hypocrisy of your political
> ideology and politicians when THEY lied more, committed
> inimical acts against the constitution for political
> gain, and;
The question was NOT who lied more, but whether they lied. Looking for
someone who is a bigger liar does nothing to negate the fact she was
lying. Remember, she had years of experience by watching her husband
while he held office. She is an apprentice liar. Perhaps now a
journeyman??
>
> d) Speaks of your ignorance and stupidity by trying to
> divert, or limit the issue to the Clintons and not have
> to speak of your OWN politicians lying, perjury,
> pedophilia, and "toe-tapping
If you want to see ignorance and stupidity, look in the mirror.
>
>
>> ==================================================================
>
>> President Reagan created the conditions which made possible the crimes
>> committed by others by his secret deviations from announced national
>> policy as to Iran and hostages and by his open determination to keep
>> the contras together ``body and soul'' despite a statutory ban on
> contra aid.1
>
>> McFarlane, North Trial Testimony, 3/10/89, p. 3946
> .
Ken
COMMON SENSE!!! This woman is supposed to be the smartest woman in the
world. How could anyone that smart fail to recall the answer to 96
questions???? America wants to know!!!
Ken
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:44:31 -0600, Ken
> <k...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Listed below is what YourDictionary.com says. If you disagree with my
>>>> definition, just what is YOUR defintion????
>>> The Model Penal Code, which has been adopted in some form by many states
>>> and promulgated by the Commission on Uniform State Laws, also sets forth
>>> the following basic elements for the crime of perjury: (1) a false
>>> statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial
>>> proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the
>>> proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the Specific Intent to deceive.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't see any real conflict between our definitions.
>
> "lie" must be uttered (even under oath)
>
> Are you incapable of looking up the congressionally
> defined definition of "perjury" in the US CODE?
>
>> Hillary was
>> being questioned about fraud in a case where she was a material person.
>
> lied.
>
>> If she did not answer truthfully the questions while she was under
>> oath, she was committing perjury.
>
>
> Are you stupid, KEN?
>
> You can only claim she "lied" or "committed perjury" if
> PROOF exists she did.
>
> You're ALLEGING----without ANY proof.
You can put lipstick on a pig (not necessarily Hillary) and it does not
change the fact it is a pig.
>
> What an UNAMERICAN thing to do, KENLOON.
>
>> Any person who answered 96 questions
>> with "I cannot recall" truthfully, in a case such as the one she was
>> involved, is not qualified to be president on that basis alone. I rest
>> my case.
>
> So, RONNIE RAYGUN was not qualified and should have
> been removed?
>
> Why haven't you posted that in a statement, KENLOON?
>
> He said "I don't recall" over 144 times in his
> Pointdexter deposition---Grand Jury testimony---UNDER
> OATH------then when caught ADMITTED IT.
Lamont Cranston
No, American does not want to know.
Common sense? ROTFLMAO!!! So, that's your proof that she was lying? You
are so incredibly stupid that I am amazed that are able to find your way to
a keyboard.
Again, list all 96 questions and provide evidence that she lied when she
said that she didn't recall.
Here's a question for you. What did you have for dinner the night before
you reached the age of 16?