posted on June 5, 2005 09:55:38 PM new
Thanks linda. Your posts make no mention of any convictions. Being found in contempt is not a criminal conviction. Clinton wasn't convicted of anything, any more than Nixon was. Also, President Clinton's license was suspended, he didn't "lose" it. Once again, nice try at skewing the truth to fit your needs.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on June 5, 2005 10:30:16 PM newPresidential Crimes.
Clinton personally committed felonies by lying under oath in a civil deposition and to a grand jury.
Nixon faced three Articles of Impeachment which held him responsible for the acts of subordinates of which he had no advance knowledge. The Articles do not accuse him of personally committing a felony.
Presidential Lying.
One Article of Impeachment against Nixon was that he lied to the American people. Nixon was never accused of lying under oath.
Clinton lied repeatedly to the American people. He was the first President in history to be accused of lying under oath.
--------------
Ah but profe....you don't speak the truth about me when you accuse me of: skewing the truth to fit your needs.
You make yourself appear very small to me when you use these plays on words to make my intentions appear differently that they are. Everyone here knows you are much more educated and articulate than I. And you use that to your advantage in debate with me. But then you add a little devious twist to it...and try to imply something that's not true at all.
Imo, having his license suspended for 5 years...means to me he lost the use of same.
It's JUST semantics, profe....nothing more.
Convicted might not have been the best choice of words...but they are the charges he was impeached under and what he was found guilty of. To me, again same thing.
Just like Nixon he faced criminal charges had he not admitted to the charges against him...and paid his fines. Had Nixon not resigned, he too would have faced an impeachment trial.
So...no skewing going on at all. I admit I'm at a disadvantage in 'word' games with you. Doesn't mean you aren't very muc mistake about your accusation against me. Because you are.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 6, 2005 06:25:54 AM newYou make yourself appear very small to me when you use these plays on words to make my intentions appear differently that they are. Everyone here knows you are much more educated and articulate than I. And you use that to your advantage in debate with me.
Sorry, I didn't know you wanted a level intellectual playing field...say, that sounds like sort of a "liberal" concept..like I should teach to the bottom of the class instead of the top, so the slow-pokes won't get their feelings hurt. Forget the fact that a rising tide lifts all boats...I tell you what, from now on, when responding to you, I'll only type with one hand, and I'll tie one side of my brain behind my back, so as to not give myself any advantages.
But then you add a little devious twist to it...and try to imply something that's not true at all.
I didn't imply any thing at all, Linda, and I made no plays on words. I stated my position right up front. "..nice try at skewing the truth to fit your needs." You stated that Clinton was convicted of his crimes, and Nixon wasn't. That is a patently false claim. Neither was convicted. Clinton paid fines, and Nixon left office. If you didn't mean to use the word convicted, you should pick your terms more carefully. That way, nobody will accuse you of skewing the truth.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on June 6, 2005 06:51:42 AM new
""I think what she's most upset about is that Clinton remains popular all over the world and ..well, Nixon didn't "" and bush never was or will be
posted on June 6, 2005 08:56:26 AM new
Linda: Respectfully, if you want to get into legal or even logical arguments here at the Round Table, I suggest you get out a dictionary and look up some of those "hard" words--like "convicted." Arm yourself with the definitions. I know you'll be involving yourself over and over in the future in what you condemn as "educated" arguments.
It's never too late for further education. My univ. administrator husband has always said that college just gives us the appetite for continuing education all our lives. No matter where you start, you can go further with your education.
What you seem to do is willfully ignore multi-syllable words in favor of your old arguments. Like a kids' argument -- "are too," "am not," etc.
If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten.
___________________________________
Sometimes it's worth wading through the skewed truth and deliberate prevarication to read such a clear analysis and rebuttal...like a ray of light at the end of the tunnel. Good post, Profe.
posted on June 6, 2005 11:07:57 AM new
Nothing funny has been said, linda..so why are you laughing?
I think that it's important to correct misinformation and false statements. I know that you would like free reign to spin your tales without interruption but that's not happening.
posted on June 6, 2005 02:07:55 PM new
omg. So Linda, you've got your convictions all wrong havent you? Criminal conviction vs. any old conviction vs. your own conviction Clinton lied?! You really have the whole thing quite mixed up, dont you? I mean, its not like he made a plea deal and received a fine and had his license suspended for nothing is it???????? Whats the deal with that then?
Seems to me you were chumped on a word. (and, nice job with that profe, btw - that is usually my area of sniper expertise. But perhaps youre learning something around here...hahhaha! [smiles])
Roadsmith, did you know that my grandfather who started Hofstra University, (and I wont mention all the other talents in my linage or my vast experience in life that doesnt apply to the subject matter, because that would only sound like boasting) but he always told me beware of people who auspiciously offer unsolicited suggestions to {cough,koff}help you. He said it really only means, "Let me tell you something..." to which one's normal reply most usually only leaves: "and who the f asked you?"
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Jun 6, 2005 02:27 PM ]
posted on June 6, 2005 09:34:11 PM new
thanks helen
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
Criminal conviction vs. any old conviction vs. your own conviction Clinton lied?! You really have the whole thing quite mixed up, dont you?