I see, you are totally guiltless in this blatant attempt to deceive... And Clinton never had sex with Monica...
On Apr 10, 5:43 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Just which part is not absolutely accurate ?? Where did I deny ANYTHING ?? > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:40 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > De nial I see is still in vogue and a river in Egypt... > > > On Apr 10, 5:24 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If you read DC statute you will find oral sex is defined quite clearly. > > > Please read it. By Statute where it took place it is NOT sex but SODOMY. > > > Sodomy by statute is NOT sex. > > > > Did slick willy get a Knobber.... hell yes, but then they never asked > > THAT > > > question did they ?? They asked if he had "sex", tried to define it in a > > non > > > statutory way "just for the purpose of this hearing" to quote the > > prosecutor > > > and willy stuck to statute and said no. > > > > Had they asked if he had sodomy and he said no it definitely would have > > been > > > 'under DC statute' a legal lie> > > > > Why did the right choose to sidestep congressionally approved statute and > > > refer to sodomy as sex......... Both sides played word games for the > > press. > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:17 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I see on topic means here ignore false claims made. To you the topic > > > > is reduced to "arresting" rather than the "jurisdiction, trial, > > > > conviction, and arresting" aspects of the ICJ... And Clinton did > > > > not have sex with Monica while Monica was having sex with him, > > > > right??? > > > > > On Apr 10, 5:11 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thank-you for being on subject Zeb. Arrest is certainly different > > from > > > > > conviction. > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, I'm sure a European nation would have the balls to "arrest" > > Bush. > > > > > > LOL! Keep dreaming. > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 7:09 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The problem is a Spanish conviction is a European conviction. If > > it > > > > is > > > > > > found > > > > > > > to be a "delito" it is extrdictable from anywhere with a European > > > > nation > > > > > > > treaty. That would curtail his travel habits. No more pro oil > > > > speeches in > > > > > > > Calgary. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Evidently, the feckless Hispanoles care what he does. The > > question > > > > is, > > > > > > > > who cares what THEY do? > > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 6:51 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Who cares what he does ? > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure Bush would be shivering in his boots! LOL! > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 6:45 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > No, but if convicted and a warrant issued it can be > > exercised > > > > in > > > > > > ANY > > > > > > > > > > aduanal > > > > > > > > > > > area. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Zebnick < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spain is impotent and irrelevant. They're also > > collossal > > > > > > cowards. > > > > > > > > What > > > > > > > > > > > > will these hispanoles do? Send the Nina and Pinta over > > here > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > retrieve Bush and "bring him to justice?" They'd better > > > > bring > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > > kick ass paella and sangria with them or we won't even > > let > > > > them > > > > > > > > dock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 5:06 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > So China did not ignore a UN Resolution in 1951 by > > your > > > > > > facts... > > > > > > > > > > That > > > > > > > > > > > > > is good to know, now only if it were true... And > > that is > > > > the > > > > > > > > problem > > > > > > > > > > > > > here... Not unlike the WH insisting Obama did not > > bow to > > > > the > > > > > > > > Saudi > > > > > > > > > > > > > King... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I do not know if it is being Gringo is to accept > > > > truth > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > made apparent, If so you are NOT Gringo... Too bad, > > > > because > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > trait all folks could benefit from, be them > > Europeans, > > > > > > Indians, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chinese, Africans, Arabs, Latinos, and Gringos... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 4:13 pm, Mark <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All told, Reagan did noy ignore a UN resolution but > > a > > > > > > > > conviction > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a great difference. I guess that is lost > > on > > > > you > > > > > > and it > > > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > > > > > holds my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position... I do not make assumptions without > > > > identifying > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > such. > > > > > > > > > > > > That > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would be a Gringo failing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM, jgg1000a < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Simply because I am not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless 1959 is prior to 1981 you are in error... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Your need to have things spelled out letter > > for > > > > > > letter > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > obvious > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lack of insight into a situation as a whole is > > not my > > > > > > > > > > shortcoming. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your refusal to explicitly state assumptions, not > > > > > > atypical > > > > > > > > for LW > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demagoguery, IS your shortcoming in a honest, > > civil, > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > transparent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > debate... That is often done to insure circular > > > > logic > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > ensure > > > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prejudices become the conclusions... It is > > often > > > > also > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > reason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the LW cna NOT accept the reality of the GOOD > > Bush > > > > did in > > > > > > > > Iraq... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> but only one side has held itself up as the > > > > fortress > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > freedom, > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > land of liberty and free thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > More BS... A better statement is that those > > opposing > > > > > > America > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Human Rights demand perfection from America while > > > > > > ignoring or > > > > > > > > > > > > excusing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > away worst conduct in others... Why??? Then > > they do > > > > not > > > > > > > > have to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > insist the really bad abusers do anything about > > human > > > > > > > > rights??? > > > > > > > > > > How > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do you advance Human Rights - by demanding > > perfection > > > > > > from a > > > > > > > > few, > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by getting the worst abusers to change??? > > Frankly > > > > it > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > latter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which produces greater results... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The UN Human Rights Body is an example... Or > > take > > > > the > > > > > > issue > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transAtlantic slavery in the 1600's to 1850... > > Who > > > > > > received > > > > > > > > > > most of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the slaves??? Do you know??? The US by and by > > > > treated > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > slaves > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far better than the Caribbean or Brazil.... Is > > > > Cuba, > > > > > > Haiti, > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brazil asked for reparations??? Or Saudi > > Arabia or > > > > > > Iran > > > > > > > > (both > > > > > > > > > > who > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > engaged in slavery in the 1900's... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I am here to debate, not instruct. None of my > > > > facts > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > incorrect > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my position is formed after a career of 27 years > > of > > > > first > > > > > > > > hand on > > > > > > > > > > > > site > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > observation with bullets flying and who is who > > and > > > > backed > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > who > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > field known. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Debates require STATED assumptions... Second > > your > > > > fact > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > US > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under Reagan was the first to openly ignore a UN > > > > > > Resolution > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > false... So yes your facts ARE QUESTIONABLE... > > > > Sorry > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > disabuse > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you of this... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 3:02 pm, Mark <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is it you can not admit you were in factual > > > > error > > > > > > > > instead > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeking to justify BS by jumping on the US??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simply because I am not. Your need to have > > things > > > > > > spelled > > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > > > > > letter for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > letter and obvious lack of insight into a > > situation > > > > as > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > whole > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > not my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shortcoming. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There have absolutely been wrongs on all sides > > that > > > > nis > > > > > > > > > > > > unquestionable... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but only one side has held itself up as the > > > > fortress of > > > > > > > > > > freedom, > > > > > > > > > > > > the land > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liberty and free thought, the supposed shining > > > > example > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > > export > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > force of arms (covert or overt) if you > > disagree. > > > > That > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > US. No > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > government has ever been so hypocritical and no > > > > people > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > blinded > > > > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > misinformation as the US. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I do not have a "hard on" for the US as a > > > > whole, > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > again failed policy to forcefully indoctrinate > > the > > > > > > world > > > > > > > > > > regardless > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > culture and tradition. \ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am here to debate, not instruct. None of my > > facts > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > incorrect > > > > > > > > > > > > and my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position is formed after a > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > -- > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
