In article <3689a7b5.315043...@news.supernews.com> sa...@pyramidsp.com writes: >On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 20:56:46 -0500, Joe Anstett ><joe.anst...@SPAMSUCKSrcn.com> wrote:
>>There's a difference between LYING, and LYING UNDER OATH. It's called PERJURY. >>It's a serious offense. If you or I did it under a legal proceeding, we would be >>in jail.
>Very few purjury cases are ever persued. Not every crime is >prosecuted. There are a lot of cases that are dropped even though they >know the defendant is guilty, because it would be too hard to prove >and be a waste of taxpayers money. I seriously doubt that if I lied >about having an affair 10 years after the events of the subject of a >civil case that was thrown out of court, that I would be brought up on >perjury charges.
In many states it is also a crime to engage in "selective prosecution". Many police officers, store detectives, etc. have to be very careful that they don't develop patterns of things like "I go after those Arab women with big purses, they always are stealing stuff". If a defendant can prove that there is a pattern of prosecution by those bringing charges against him that is more related to their race, ethnicity, political views or something else other than the crime they are charged with, those involved in arresting and prosecuting a person for these reasons can be found to be criminally and civilly liable.
It might be hard for Clinton to prove singularily, but the Republicans had better watch their step with Gore. Don't know if District of Columbia has this statute, but perhaps there might be something of this nature that could be brought against the Republicans in this instance. If it can be shown that they are selectively prosecuting certain individuals supposedly for things like perjury but really for other reasons not related to seeking justice, Republicans might get themselves in trouble. Especially if patterns for prosecuting the perjury statutes aren't handed out as evenly for similar violators as the above poster suggests.
Rodney Peterson wrote: > He (Joe) is definitely an idiot who posts anonymously under many > different names
You (Rodney) are a big mouth who can't even keep his Joes straight. I NEVER post anonymously or under different names. And if you think you can prove otherwise, go right ahead.
And I don't run around the newsgroup calling other people idiots, or trying to sell THX DVDs either.
> . He likes to point out in his sig what he considers to > be my political ignorance by forgetting Ross Perot even ran in 1996.
I rarely even use a .sig, and when I do, it says "Divx -- The gift that keeps on taking". What the hell does that have to with Ross Perot?
[Extremist Left Wing nonsense snipped]
Rodney, I'll assume you're talking about a different Joe. You've made that mistake with me before. You really have a hard time telling people apart, I wish you'd at least make SOME effort to keep people's identities straight before you proceed with your mean-spirited attacks.
Then why did you even respond since there are no Joe Anstetts in this thread? And the Joe that does use the quote has an E-Mail address almost completely identical to yours? (J...@nospam.Joe and Josepha@SPAM_SUCKScnet.com). And you both express extreme right wing points of view and both happen to be in the same threads at the same time, as in the "Primary Colors" thread. How would you know I was even referring to you?
In article <368225b7.611842...@news.erols.com>, J...@NO.SPAM (Joe) writes:
|> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:46:50 -0800 (PST), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net
|> (Rodney Peterson) wrote:
|> |> >Livingstone quit for one reason-Hustler publsher Larry Flynt got the |> >dirt on him. Lousiana lost a great deal of political clout in the House |> >because he quit. Do you think he would have ever quit otherwise? What's |> >so honorable about getting caught doing the same thing you accuse your |> >cheif adversary of doing and then quitting instead of facing the music? |> |> You ass! Livingstone didn't lie under oath. You simply refuse to |> understand what this is about no matter how often it is explained to |> you. |>
And neither has President Clinton lied under oath. Kenneth Starr has *alleged* that, amongst other things, President Clinton lied under oath. Last time I looked, the American judicial system still has the presumption of innocence, in other words, until you have been convicted, you are not guilty of any charges.
Guess what? President Clinton has not been convicted of anything (yet, anyway), which is a minor fact that has seemed to have escaped the attention of the Republican party (and its synchophants).
With respect to impeachment, the House is simply acting like a Grand Jury, which has recommended charges that will be judged in a court of law (in this case, the Senate). Impeachment != conviction.
|> >It was |> >all about Whitewater for years until the Lewinsky thing broke, then the |> >gears shifted straight towards the President's personal life. Not a word |> >about Whitewater anymore. The Senate has the power to do what they will |> >with this case now, and the likeliest outcome is there will be no trial |> >and either censure or no punishment at all for the President. |> > |> His punishment will be his place in history as the worst embarrassment |> in the history of this great country.
His place in history has yet to be determined. But won't be determined on the basis of this farce that our so-called representatives have foisted on the American public. His accomplishments will, however, be remembered (Wye River, N. Ireland, etc.). The fact that he is almost universally respected by other World leaders will be remembered. The fact that today he has a 74% approval rating will be remembered. The fact that the Budget was balanced under his watch will be remembered.
I suspect the embarrassment in the history books will be reserved for our congresscritters which allowed this farce to get started and to continue.
Rodney Peterson wrote: > Then why did you even respond since there are no Joe Anstetts in this > thread?
Rodney, check the thread (if WebTV even allows you to do that). Here's our little section of the thread hierarchy:
Joe Anstett Adrian Barton Rodney Peterson
Now what was that about me not being in this thread? I said something, Adrian replied to me, and you replied to Adrian in a direct bash of ME (or another person named Joe).
> And the Joe that does use the quote has an E-Mail address almost > completely identical to yours? (J...@nospam.Joe and > Josepha@SPAM_SUCKScnet.com).
You have to try a little harder than that, Rodney. How about checking the IP address, for starters? Or looking at histories in Dejanews? Sorry to break it to you, but a lot of people are named "Joe", and a lot of them don't like getting spammed by email harvesters and foil it with some spam-blocking characters.
Besides, if I were going to do something dishonest, do you think I'd still call myself Joe? Don't you think I'd be a little more creative and call myself "Nobody" or "DivxSux" or something?
As I said, I never post anonymously, and I never post under different names. I DO post from different accounts from time to time (my work account, jose...@cnet.com, my home account, joe.anst...@rcn.com, and an email-forwarding address joe_anst...@email.com that just goes to my personal account anyway), but I always use my full, real name in all posts despite the different email addresses.
> And you both express extreme right wing > points of view
"Extreme" being defined as anything that YOU don't agree with. You HAVE been listening to Dick Gephardt, haven't you! "Extreme" really has lost all meaning for you liberals, hasn't it?
Would you care to define an "extreme right wing point of view" for me and give examples of where I articulated them? And how an "extreme right wing point of view" is different from ANY right wing point of view, or even a moderate point of view?
> and both happen to be in the same threads at the same > time, as in the "Primary Colors" thread. How would you know I was even > referring to you?
You were referring to ME because your post is a direct descendant of mine, a mere 2 levels deeper than mine. What else am I supposed to conclude?
And, as a matter of fact, you made the same mistake in the "Primary Colors" thread. You don't even learn from your mistakes...
I know something as trivial as, oh, different ISPs, different last names, and different writing styles must really confuse you. But do try to make distinctions the next time you engage in the mean-spirited politics of personal destruction, would you? At least make sure you have the right target lined up in your sights.
>>When you lie UNDER OATH, it doesn't matter what the lie is about, it's
still a crime. There are a couple of hundred people in prison for it, and tens of thousands have felony conviction records, lost careers, and paid hefty fines for lying under oath. Felons are not qualified to hold elective office on the local level, should we have one as President?<<
This is 100% wrong. One is only guilty of perjury if the lie told under oath is **germaine** to the issue at hand. If I get in the stand and lie about how many cats I have in a burglary case, I have NOT committed perjury because my answer did not reasonably affect the matter at hand.
Howard Pearson
"Without the law there can be no freedom. And without justice there can be no law."
This puts two holes right smack in the middle of your insane theory that polls are biased toward liberalism.
1. If they are o liberal, what the hell are they doing polling your right wing, psychotic, prejudiced, moronic, biased ass?
2. How does the question "If Clinton isn't impeached, do you think he should be censured?" play into this. Wouldn't they have also asked "Do you think President Clinton should be impeached?" and then wouldn't "If he isn't impeached, should he be censured?" Wouldn't that be a logical follow up question? Or are you playing half truths here like you do with everything else.
And, who even cares if Ross Perot ran in 1996? It made no difference at all in the outcome and who pays attention to a raving lunatic on the media to begin with except maybe someone like you who no doubt injects a healthy dose of Rush Limbaugh into their tiny, can't think for themselves brain every chance they get, "Joe" (not to be confused with Joe Anstett).
>>Pre-election estimates by the Republicans showed that they probably
would gain up to 11 seats. To then lose 5 was such a blow that Gingrich had to resign.<<
Other projections (see McGlaughlin Group, Chris Matthews) had them gaining 5-6 seats in the Senate, also. And historically, they should have gained at least 25-30 seats in the house. What happened?
Howard Pearson
"Without the law there can be no freedom. And without justice there can be no law."
>>But if you were the President of the United States, lying under oath
to both a Federal judge and later a Federal grand jury, simply to avoid prosecution in a Federal civil-rights suit, I think that you would see similar interest by those of us in the media.<<
Ah! So we should subject the President to rules that don't apply to the rest of us?
Howard Pearson
"Without the law there can be no freedom. And without justice there can be no law."
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:59:56 GMT, py...@gte.net (Adrain Barton) wrote: >The reason a lot of journalists are liberal is that conservatives try >to restrict the first amendment.
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:38:35 -0700 (PDT), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote: >The 1996 election results as posted are correct. I had forgotten Perot >even ran in 1996.
>[The reason a lot of journalists are liberal is that conservatives try >[to restrict the first amendment.
>Uh, no, but thank you for playing "Stump the News Anchor."
>Most journalists are liberal because journalism professors tend to be >liberal. He who teaches, molds.
Take it a step further. Many of the journalism professors are or were trained by leftist draft dodgers enrolling in college to save their sorry asses from having to go to Vietnam.
>It has nothing to do with the Constitution or restrictions on free >speech. If you had ever been a journalist you would know this.
>Perhaps I am commiting the greatest heresy by speaking on the subject >of journalism from the standpoint of a journalist.
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:38:35 -0700 (PDT), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote: >The 1996 election results as posted are correct. I had forgotten Perot >even ran in 1996.
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 14:03:01 GMT, py...@gte.net (Adrain Barton) wrote: >On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:30:39 -0500, Joe Anstett ><joe.anst...@SPAMSUCKSrcn.com> wrote:
>>I live in the New York market. Next time you see a poll, take a look at the >>footnotes. They often ask approximately 800 people, they skew the questions to >>get the answers they are seeking, and they often conduct the polls in well-known >>areas that don't often represent a fair sampling of the "average Amercian".
>Any polling organization that uses these methods would be out of >business after their first poll. You either are an idiot or you >believe everything Rush Limbaugh says, which make you an idiot anyway.
I was polled about Clinton. I can't remember all of the questions directly but they almost all were skewed to Clinton's benefit. An example?
"If he's not impeached, do you think Clinton should be censured?"
The poll results? "67% wanted Clinton to be censured." No mention of the way the question was truly asked. Perhaps it's time the Congress pass a law that when poll results are broadcast or printed that the actual wording of the questions should be given as well. Then everyone with half a brain would understand how they get the numbers they get.
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:38:35 -0700 (PDT), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote: >The 1996 election results as posted are correct. I had forgotten Perot >even ran in 1996.
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 07:23:46 -0800 (PST), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net
(Rodney Peterson) wrote: >He (Joe) is definitely an idiot who posts anonymously under many >different names. He likes to point out in his sig what he considers to >be my political ignorance by forgetting Ross Perot even ran in 1996. >Well, what's to remember? When was Perot ever anything other than an >eccentric nut case who claimed the CIA was out to ruin his daughter's >wedding, for Christ's sake.
You see everybody! Rodney forgets that Clinton didn't have a majority of the votes in either of his election wins, making Perot's presence an important factor in both.
> A charismatic communist candidate would have >been easier to take more seriously. Or maybe David Duke, probably >another one of "Joe's" heroes.
Glad you said probably, but wrong anyway.
>Perot, like so many of the right wing >conservative politicans Joe idolizes, quit and ran away in 1992 just >like Gingrich and Livingston did recently. Gingrich could have fought >for his job, surely as Clinton is fighting for his. But he's a quitter >and leaves when the going gets tough, just like leaving his sick wife's >bedside. Livingston didn't even try to fight, he just plain gave up >damaging the poilitical clout of the state of Louisiana in the process. >Joe has also stated in the past every single movie that features the >President of The United States is propaganda. He actually believes the >President in "Independence Day" is modeled after Bill Clinton.
You are in ignorant fool if you can't see that. Younger than most Presidents with a teenage daughter and wife with a Hillary hair-do. A fucking blind man could figure it out just from the sound!
>To say >nothing of his zealous defense of the DTS format, which simply >redistributes sound through different channels making it sound louder >and clearer than it really is.
I never defend the DTS format. You are confusing two Joes.
> He also likes to point out he's a law >abiding citizen, in someway insinuating the sale of those precious DTS >or THX Demo Discs to interested parties is close to a felonious crime, >yet he hides behind several different aliases and spouts nonsense such >as all the polls that don't see things his way are fixed.
I never said YOU were a criminal, just that your boy Clinton was.
>People like >"Joe" (God knows if that's his real name) are dangerous, psychotic, >right wing zealots.
No, I am not right wing at all. I see each issue for what it is. And Clinton is a perjurer and you, an ignorant left wing nutcase, have blinders on.
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:38:35 -0700 (PDT), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote: >The 1996 election results as posted are correct. I had forgotten Perot >even ran in 1996.
In article <3686a515.314370...@news.supernews.com>, py...@gte.net (Adrain
Barton) writes: >How >many nationally sindicated liberal talk show hosts can you name?
Zip. Negative is always stronger than positive. Anger triumphs. Throwing bricks is more popular than marshmellows. Conservative talk show hosts tap into the deep anger and resentment that isn't present among liberals...yet.
There aren't any liberal militias that I can think of, either.
Conservatives have no heart. Liberals have no balls. Guess who always wins those fights?
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 11:39:46 -0800 (PST), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net
(Rodney Peterson) wrote: >Then why did you even respond since there are no Joe Anstetts in this >thread? And the Joe that does use the quote has an E-Mail address almost >completely identical to yours? (J...@nospam.Joe and >Josepha@SPAM_SUCKScnet.com). And you both express extreme right wing >points of view and both happen to be in the same threads at the same >time, as in the "Primary Colors" thread. How would you know I was even >referring to you?
I'm beginning to understand now, Rodney. Wanting to see someone who broke the law get punished for it is an extreme right wing view.
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:38:35 -0700 (PDT), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote: >The 1996 election results as posted are correct. I had forgotten Perot >even ran in 1996.
(Rodney Peterson) wrote: >If the Republicans think losing five seats in the House is a huge blow, >wait until 2000 when public opinion comes back and bites them in the >ass, considering most of the country is angered over Clinton's >impeachment, thinks the House and Kenneth Starr abused their powers and >less than a third of the country now holds a favorable view of >Republicans. If these numbers and the level of anger holds, Republicans >stand to lose both legislative branches and the Presidency either to Al >Gore or the attractive female senator from Louisiana whose name escapes >me. Your precious representative government, as you like to call it, >"Joe", will be represented by Democrats. Republicans had their first >chance in nearly fifty years (or something like that) to control >Congress and what did they do the first chance they got? Shut down the >government, move to entrap a popular President and a lot of other >garbage that just plain pissed people off. Your analogy that Democrats >kept control of the Congress after Reagan was elected just doesn't hold >water. The Democratic congress did nothing to piss the majority off pre >election, as the Republicans have done. Not to mention Carter had just >suffered a disastrous undercover operation failure trying to free the >hostages in Iran, and was running against a very charismatic opponent >(one of the reasons Bush lost, of course.) Who the hell are the >Republicans going to run in 2000: Dan Quayle? And will Larry Flynt show >up to dig out the garbage on whoever it may be and will that person be >ruined and quit just like Livingston without even trying to fight back?
Yeah. Larry Flynt and Bill Clinton. A match made in heaven.
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:38:35 -0700 (PDT), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote: >The 1996 election results as posted are correct. I had forgotten Perot >even ran in 1996.
>In article <368225b7.611842...@news.erols.com>, J...@NO.SPAM (Joe) writes: >|> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:46:50 -0800 (PST), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net >|> (Rodney Peterson) wrote: >|> >|> >Livingstone quit for one reason-Hustler publsher Larry Flynt got the >|> >dirt on him. Lousiana lost a great deal of political clout in the House >|> >because he quit. Do you think he would have ever quit otherwise? What's >|> >so honorable about getting caught doing the same thing you accuse your >|> >cheif adversary of doing and then quitting instead of facing the music? >|> >|> You ass! Livingstone didn't lie under oath. You simply refuse to >|> understand what this is about no matter how often it is explained to >|> you. >|>
>And neither has President Clinton lied under oath. Kenneth Starr has >*alleged* that, amongst other things, President Clinton lied under >oath. Last time I looked, the American judicial system still >has the presumption of innocence, in other words, until you have >been convicted, you are not guilty of any charges.
You dope! He had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky and said, under oath, that he did not have sex with her. If you buy that one, I'd like to borrow your wife, daughter and sister for some non-sex.
>I suspect the embarrassment in the history books will be reserved >for our congresscritters which allowed this farce to get started and >to continue.
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:38:35 -0700 (PDT), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote: >The 1996 election results as posted are correct. I had forgotten Perot >even ran in 1996.
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 18:39:19 -0800 (PST), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net
(Rodney Peterson) wrote: >This puts two holes right smack in the middle of your insane theory that >polls are biased toward liberalism.
>1. If they are o liberal, what the hell are they doing polling your >right wing, psychotic, prejudiced, moronic, biased ass?
See below and you'll see that it doesn't matter who they ask.
>2. How does the question "If Clinton isn't impeached, do you think he >should be censured?" play into this. Wouldn't they have also asked "Do >you think President Clinton should be impeached?" and then wouldn't "If >he isn't impeached, should he be censured?" Wouldn't that be a logical >follow up question? Or are you playing half truths here like you do with >everything else.
No, Rodney. They didn't ask the logical follow up questions. That's the point, you ignorant moron. They walked away with me saying "Yes" and not getting a chance to say what I really felt because they avoid asking the questions that might result in the findings they don't want to get. This is how the skew the results. I have witnessed it first hand!
>And, who even cares if Ross Perot ran in 1996? It made no difference at >all in the outcome and who pays attention to a raving lunatic on the >media to begin with except maybe someone like you who no doubt injects a >healthy dose of Rush Limbaugh into their tiny, can't think for >themselves brain every chance they get, "Joe" (not to be confused with >Joe Anstett).
See how ignorant this clown Rodney is everyone! Perot "made no difference". I have told him repeatedly that if Clinton had gotten the majority vote either election, then his assertion would be valid.
Rodney, are you ignorant or just plain stupid? If you add Bush and Perot's votes together (you yourself called Perot right wing) Clinton would have easily been defeated. It would have been a lot closer in '96, but still, using your claim that Perot is a right winger, Dole would have won with Perot's voters. Now how is that insignificant?
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:38:35 -0700 (PDT), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote: >The 1996 election results as posted are correct. I had forgotten Perot >even ran in 1996.
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 21:46:12 -0500 (EST), x...@webtv.net (Ra -the sun
god-) wrote: >>>Pre-election estimates by the Republicans showed that they probably >would gain up to 11 seats. To then lose 5 was such a blow that Gingrich >had to resign.<<
>Other projections (see McGlaughlin Group, Chris Matthews) had them >gaining 5-6 seats in the Senate, also. And historically, they should >have gained at least 25-30 seats in the house. What happened?
>Howard Pearson
I'll tell you, Howard. They did the right thing upholding the law and the ignorant masses are to realize it.
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:38:35 -0700 (PDT), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote: >The 1996 election results as posted are correct. I had forgotten Perot >even ran in 1996.
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 21:53:15 -0500 (EST), x...@webtv.net (Ra -the sun
god-) wrote: >>>When you lie UNDER OATH, it doesn't matter what the lie is about, it's >still a crime. There are a couple of hundred people in prison for it, >and tens of thousands have felony conviction records, lost careers, and >paid hefty fines for lying under oath. Felons are not qualified to hold >elective office on the local level, should we have one as President?<<
>This is 100% wrong. One is only guilty of perjury if the lie told under >oath is **germaine** to the issue at hand. If I get in the stand and >lie about how many cats I have in a burglary case, I have NOT committed >perjury because my answer did not reasonably affect the matter at hand.
>Howard Pearson
He was asked directly if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky and said no. It was germane to the situation because the inquiry was due to the fact that he had been accused of lying under oath in the Paula Jones lawsuit.
So your assertion may be right, but it does not apply in the Clinton matter.
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:38:35 -0700 (PDT), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote: >The 1996 election results as posted are correct. I had forgotten Perot >even ran in 1996.
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 21:56:16 -0500 (EST), x...@webtv.net (Ra -the sun
god-) wrote: >>>But if you were the President of the United States, lying under oath >to both a Federal judge and later a Federal grand jury, simply to avoid >prosecution in a Federal civil-rights suit, I think that you would see >similar interest by those of us in the media.<<
>Ah! So we should subject the President to rules that don't apply to the >rest of us?
>Howard Pearson
No, Howard, only the same rules.
Are all liberals as dumb as the ones in this newgroup?
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:38:35 -0700 (PDT), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote: >The 1996 election results as posted are correct. I had forgotten Perot >even ran in 1996.
>>How >>many nationally sindicated liberal talk show hosts can you name?
Larry King. Almost everyone else on CNN.
>Zip. Negative is always stronger than positive. Anger triumphs. Throwing >bricks is more popular than marshmellows. Conservative talk show hosts tap >into the deep anger and resentment that isn't present among liberals...yet.
>There aren't any liberal militias that I can think of, either.
Greenpeace. Queer Nation. There are many, they just don't call themselves militias.
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:38:35 -0700 (PDT), ROCKNROD...@webtv.net (Rodney Peterson) wrote: >The 1996 election results as posted are correct. I had forgotten Perot >even ran in 1996.
In article <3057-36805B1B...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, x...@webtv.net (Ra -the sun god-) wrote: [>>When you lie UNDER OATH, it doesn't matter what the lie is about, it's [still a crime. There are a couple of hundred people in prison for it, [and tens of thousands have felony conviction records, lost careers, and [paid hefty fines for lying under oath. Felons are not qualified to hold [elective office on the local level, should we have one as President?<< [ [This is 100% wrong. One is only guilty of perjury if the lie told under [oath is **germaine** to the issue at hand.
I invite you to provide the statute number that told you that.
Perjury is any knowing violation of the oath to tell the TRUTH, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth, except when claiming protection under the 5th Amendment.
I'll agree on that one. There are no liberal militias. I forgot to mention one other person whose accomplishments should definitely be recognized: humorist Micheal Moore.
