Newt the Confessor

[QC]

Re: Newt the Confessor

WTF did he just say? Heinous? Hypocratic? Why can you not claim that family values are good and mess yours up at the same time? Seriously?

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Newt the Confessor

UHHHH....
Practice what you preach or you are the epitome of hypocracy!......

 

[QC]

Re: Newt the Confessor

I guess my point is that if the message is good, I don't care who delivers it. Maybe I am more tolerant than you . . .

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Newt the Confessor

If you all ready believe the message than you don't need a charlatan feeding it to you ....
Or to follow said (I know this is out of context, but so delicious) .....Fakir.......

 

[WillyBWright]

Re: Newt the Confessor

I hear Wikipedia is putting Newt's picture in the Hypocrite entry.

It'll replace Henry Hyde's picture who was also a card-carrying filanderer which was revisited shortly after his role as Chief Persecutor in the Clinton Impeachment charade. What is it with these "men" ?

 

[Vlad D Impeller]

Re: Newt the Confessor

Newt the confessor?...No relation to Edward the confessor, i presume?

 

[12Footer]

Re: Newt the Confessor

"Ah Did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski. Not a single tom."

or

"Yes, Tim, I did have an affair, and before that, many moral transgretions that I'm far from proud of".

Take your pick.(or pickle, in the case of edwards).
I have. But Haut, you ARE right about one thing, I'll change my mind here -- in that I probably WOULDN'T vote for Newt any more than I would vote for slick willy. I like Newt's intelect, and fearless voice when it comes to tellin it like it is, but we just can't have anymore stains on the oval office carpet. It's a "one-of-a-kind"
piece, and it's already been thru hell.

 

[Parrott_head]

Re: Newt the Confessor

One parallel between Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Clinton is that they both to a oath involving a deity and later violated that oath.

This statement makes two assumptions, both of which may be wrong.

1) Mr. Gingrich's wedding ceremony was a religious or church centered event.

2) Mr. Clinton's swearing in before the grand jury involved some line like "....so help me God".


So which is greater, the violation of human trust or the violation of God's trust.

And since God is all knowing would he not know in advance that both of these guys were going to turn their back on this oath so there was never any trust established at the onset?


And how many angles can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[rolmops]

Re: Newt the Confessor

And how many angles can dance on the head of a pin?

Is this a very smart pun or is it just a case of misspelling??

 

[PW2]

Re: Newt the Confessor

Hey I like Newt. Not sure he'd make a great President, but I like him.

I don't care that our leaders are supposed to held to grand moral standards, whatever they are.
I don't need a moral leader, I need an effective political leader.
If I needed a moral leader, I sure as heck wouldn't search for one in a group of politicians.

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: Newt the Confessor

If I needed a moral leader, I sure as heck wouldn't search for one in a group of politicians.

Now that's funny.

 

[12Footer]

Re: Newt the Confessor

Hey I like Newt. Not sure he'd make a great President, but I like him.

I don't care that our leaders are supposed to held to grand moral standards, whatever they are.
I don't need a moral leader, I need an effective political leader.
If I needed a moral leader, I sure as heck wouldn't search for one in a group of politicians.

Amen, bro.
( a little religious lingo there).

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Newt the Confessor

Hey I like Newt. Not sure he'd make a great President, but I like him.

I don't care that our leaders are supposed to held to grand moral standards, whatever they are.
I don't need a moral leader, I need an effective political leader.
If I needed a moral leader, I sure as heck wouldn't search for one in a group of politicians.

It was sure sounding like "my politician is less hypocritical than yours".

I'm sure you'd agree PW, we have a problem with politicians being hypocrits both in morals and political ideals.

 

[treedancer]

Re: Newt the Confessor

Quote QC


I am not sure how else to communicate online except with words, like their literal meanings . . . Perjury is one thing, marital affairs are another. I am not condoning either behavior, it just so happens that one is illegal.

Sure hate snatch a question out of the middle of your post QC, but I think I can help clarify the situation a bit.


In keeping with the Disney direction of this board, I will just leave a link, and everybody that wants to go there have at it .I know that this …well for a better word creates rather large vacuum, but that’s the way it is.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html

<<Myth: Clinton committed perjury.
Fact: Clinton’s answers were legally accurate. >>
<<Perjury is knowingly telling a lie under oath, about something that is important to the case. To prosecute a false statement, the government needs to prove somehow that the witness intended to lie, rather than he was mistaken or confused over the facts. To eliminate ambiguity, confusion and opportunities for lying, lawyers often reject common-sense definitions in favor of legal definitions, which are more carefully defined.>>

<<There are four problems with the charges that Clinton committed perjury.
First, Starr never provided convincing evidence that it was Clinton’s intention to lie, rather than he was mistaken, confused, or honestly believed his interpretation of the court’s definitions.

<<Second, many of the alleged perjury charges were immaterial (irrelevant) to the case, and cannot be prosecuted.
Third, many of Clinton’s answers were technically true.
Fourth, the Republicans have taken the odd position that where Clinton and Lewinsky’s testimony differ, it must be Clinton who is lying. They conveniently neglect the possibility that Lewinsky might be lying, mistaken, confused, exaggerating the level of her romance, or coerced into her testimony by Starr’s heavy threats of prosecution. We know that Lewinsky entertained highly unrealistic fantasies, like Clinton would leave his wife for her. She also told her friends, family and therapist stories that were either clear lies or fantasies, like she and Clinton had sex in the Oval Office without any clothes on, that the president invited her to accompany him to Martha's Vineyard while the first lady was out of the country, and that the Secret Service took the president to her apartment for a tryst. Her testimony is therefore far from certain.>>

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Newt the Confessor

<<Myth: Clinton committed perjury.
Fact: Clinton’s answers were legally accurate. >>

This concept can lead to the invention of a whole new language. We'll call it Clinton speak, or Clintonese.
This is where a simple question like, "Does the supermarket sell bread?" requires a 20 lawyer team to give, interpret, and analyse the answer.

 

[PW2]

Re: Newt the Confessor

Clinton was never officially legally charged nor convicted of perjury.

It depends, of course, on what the meaning of "is" is.

What Clinton engaged in was, of course, despicable behavior, but not illegal.

I doubt seriously, assuming an impartial jury, he could have been convicted of perjury.

"Quote
I'm sure you'd agree PW, we have a problem with politicians being hypocrits both in morals and political ideals.
"Quote

Well it goes without saying those traits exist, both in politicians and every one else in the world. To expect anything less is probably unrealistic, given basic principles of human nature. That said, I'm not sure in and of itself it is a problem.

I think governing is much like what they say about making sausage--it's the end result that's important, and not so much the steps taken to get to that result.

 

[Vlad D Impeller]

Re: Newt the Confessor

Elected officials who Throw stones while living in a glass house ought to be publicly flogged.:devil:

 

[12Footer]

Re: Newt the Confessor

Clinton was never officially legally charged nor convicted of perjury.

It depends, of course, on what the meaning of "is" is.

What Clinton engaged in was, of course, despicable behavior, but not illegal.

I doubt seriously, assuming an impartial jury, he could have been convicted of perjury.

"Quote
I'm sure you'd agree PW, we have a problem with politicians being hypocrits both in morals and political ideals.

Well, sure. Technically, you're correct... He IS a lib, therfore, cannot be "found guilty" of anything in any American court (see also Sandy Berger, William Jefferson et al)
Models of ethical behaviour all

Source: Wikipedia

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ."

In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign.

Liberals own the senate, the courts, the gubment schools where our children are indoctrinated (with the help of the socialists). I would've expected even less of an outcome than his censure by the bar. But then -- I am a Christian neocon. Newt has yet to be burned at the liberal's stake. Get busy.

 

[treedancer]

Re: Newt the Confessor

Quote 12footer

(see also Sandy Berger, William Jefferson et al)
Models of ethical behaviour all


I have folder full of corrupt politicians, you want to see them let me know I will be glad to oblige.



Burden of proof

civil law
In civil litigation, the burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff. However, there are a number of technical situations in which the burden shifts to the defendant.

criminal law
In criminal litigation, the burden of proof is always on the state.

The deference between the two is the reason that we see OJ out playing golf and not in jail or dead.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Newt the Confessor

Clinton was never officially legally charged nor convicted of perjury.

[colour=green]Hmmmmmm. I guess we went to the same High School but it musta been on different planets PW2! Clinton admitted guilt and agreed to punishment. Is that hard for you to understand with the ol' HS education n' all?[/colour]

It depends, of course, on what the meaning of "is" is.

[colour=blue]Only on the planet we are discussin' PW2![/colour]

What Clinton engaged in was, of course, despicable behavior, but not illegal.

[colour=red]Hmmmmmmm. So I guess yer tryin' to tell me sexual harassment is a legal activity then: eh, PW2?[/colour]

I doubt seriously, assuming an impartial jury, he could have been convicted of perjury.

Hard tellin' not knowin': PW2!

"Quote
I'm sure you'd agree PW, we have a problem with politicians being hypocrits both in morals and political ideals.
"Quote

Well it goes without saying those traits exist, both in politicians and every one else in the world. To expect anything less is probably unrealistic, given basic principles of human nature. That said, I'm not sure in and of itself it is a problem.

I think governing is much like what they say about making sausage--it's the end result that's important, and not so much the steps taken to get to that result.

Spoken like a true LIBERAL: PW2! Translation: "The ends justify the means"