And how do you prove it was caused by neglect, eh? Do you want women who end up in the hospital with a miscarriage to get a visit from a detective or be brought before a grand jury because she might have been negligent?
Because he committed the crime of actually having a plan for the country, he's a nutjob.
No, he's viewed as a nutjob because...he's a nutjob, like all Libertarians. Libertarianism has no answer for our health care problems or global warming. Not to mention the fact that wanting the federal government to be cut to the bone yet state governments should be free to do whatever the hell they want (they say the Bill of Rights only applies to the Feds - so states would be free to wiretap or torture to their hearts content) makes no damned sense whatsoever.
Roe vs Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the states.
Except of course that states have no more business restricting abortion than they do in restricting speech or sending the National Guard to stay in people's homes.
It's not about changing your mind. It's about evaluating why someone held their previous position.
And what of Obama's "new" position on NASA is contrary to any previous position he had on NASA?
Obama is the guy that just the other night (in that quasi-debate-format thing he attended with McCain in Colorado) who, when asked about when "human" life begins in the womb (as it relates, of course, to the abortion issue) said "that's above my pay grade." Wow.
It was pretty obvious he was referring to God. So it's no surprise that the wingnuts missed it, and of course no surprise that they also ignored the next sentences coming out Obama's mouth that explained his position on abortion.
Why stork, you sound almost rational today. Are you feeling well?
Obama is just a left wing pol
He's not left wing by any stretch of even a drug assisted imagination. Being to the left of Dick Cheney doesn't make him a a "left wing pol" any more than Ted Kennedy is an arch-conservative because he's to the right of Fidel Castro.
Where Kerry had a problem was that he made a political career out of being a total pacifist
Pacifists don't generally volunteer for duty. In wartime.
but then he turned around and voted for the Invasion of Iraq in 2002 to get pick up a few votes and then ran not as a Dove but as a Wartime leader during the Democratic convention. That's a huge flip flop.
Ah yes, flip flops. Did you know that George Bush took credit for legislation in Texas that allowed patients to sue their HMO's that he actually, um, vetoed as governor? That made him the undisputed king of flip flops until Mitt Romney and John McCain started running for president this year.
But anyway, John Kerry. It's not a question of either being a "Dove" or a "Wartime Leader", you ignorant boob (that's more like it, stork), it's a question of using the right amount of force. Something of which only two Republicans have had an inkling about in the last 100 years: Eisenhower and George H. W. Bush.
between expecting that no one will see you when you go into town (totally unreasonable) and not wanting every move you make to be permanently stored in a searchable video database. Unless you do something to attract someone's attention, they're going to forget about you. In about three seconds. Whereas with the increasing amounts of computing power and the decreasing costs of storage, if this kind of footage isn't being stored, permanently, it soon will be.
The old someone-has-it-worse-off-than-you-so-be-grateful argument only serves those who want to keep that status quo for their own benefit. The measuring stick should be what comparable countries are doing. If people living in Seoul can get over 50 Mbs connections for less than $50 per month, there's no reason why people living in San Francisco or Sidney shouldn't be able to do the same. If people living in rural Sweden or Norway can get 20+ Mbps connections for less $$$ than Comcast charges in the U.S., there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do the same in Nebraska or Western Australia.
The problem isn't the technology, it's executive complacency and greed. That you have it worse than I do doesn't mean I'm lucky, it just means that you have to put up with more bullshit.
In parts of Europe and Asia you can get a better residential connection than your typical college has in the U.S. For a fraction of the cost that a residential customer in the U.S. pays to Comcast. Even in countries with a lower population density.
Crappy net access in the U.S. has little to do with paying for infrastructure and a whole lot to do with executive complacency and greed.
Not only are you drinking Apple's Kool Aid, it's old Kool Aid. it's been months since I've found anything that's exclusive to iTunes apart from the special live performances they offer.
Yes, because your musical tastes are so powerful they overwhelm basic mathematics so Amazon's 2.3 million songs are more than iTunes' 6 million+ songs.
Being an open forum doesn't do much good when people use mod points to enforce groupthink.
Like screaming conservative homophobes that turn out to secretly be gay, we're dealing with a classic case of projection. You are a fanboy yourself - an Apple hating groupthink fanboy that screams "Kool Aid" when someone makes a simple factual statement that iTunes (6 million+ songs) has a lot more tracks than Amazon (2.3 million+ songs). And then you're shocked, shocked! - when you get the moderation you deserve.
If you aren't impressed by Apple's products, here's a simple solution for you. Apple doesn't market the Macbook Air as so perfect that Jesus H. Christ couldn't do any better himself. Jobs doesn't threaten to come by your house and kick your dog if you don't buy an iPod. If you don't like their products....drumroll....don't fucking buy them. But "a product you don't want to buy" != "sucks", so don't be surprised if you continue to pick up donuts if you continue to talk that way.
Bill Clinton lied under oath in the lawsuit that Paula Jones had filed against him.
Splitting hairs is not lying.
That was the lie under oath that led to his impeachment.
Lying under oath is not a crime. Lying under oath about a relevant issue *is* a crime, but the judge ruled that Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case. Know what else is a crime? Malicious prosecution, and the Republicans in Congress should have been taken to the cleaners for it.
So, you're allowed to lie under oath if it's not relevant? That doesn't seem like a good policy to me.
Of course it's not, because the judge might not see things the same way you do, and might throw your butt in jail for contempt of court.:) And then the prosecutor may press perjury charges, as what happened to Scooter Libby.
Where are you getting your information from?
IANALE (I am not a lawyer either), but I talk to people who are.:)
However, I do like to get my facts straight, so if you've got some good evidence, I'm willing to listen.
Surething. First link is on the judge ruling that Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, and in the fourth paragraph of the second link:
How is perjury different from making false statements? To commit perjury, you have to be under oath, and you have to knowingly fib about something that's relevant to the case at hand.
bada bing bada boom. Since there was no perjury, the Republicans in Congress who pushed through impeachment (many of whome had had affairs of their own, or in Gengrich's case, had affairs *during* the impeachment trial) should have been thrown in jail for malicious prosecution.
No, he didn't. He split hairs about the definition "sexual relations" while under oath, which is completely different.
That's perjury.
No, it's not. For a lie to be perjury, it has to be relevant. If Fitzgerald asked Libby how much he weighed and he answered 150 pounds when he knew he weighed 200 pounds, it's not perjury because it wasn't relevant to the Valerie Wilson case. And the judge in the Paula Jones case ruled that even if Bill lied through his teeth about having a consensual fling with Monica, that it was irrelevant to whether or not he harrased Paula Jones.
The impeachment of Bill Clinton wasn't about perjury, it was Republicans trying to get rid of him by any means necessary. Whitewater didn't work. Vince Foster didn't work. So they investigated and reinvestigated to come up with something, and decided a perjury trap would have to do. If Congress spent tens of millions investigating you, and gave a judge unlimited time, resources, and scope of investigation, you'd do pretty well if the worst thing they would come up with was you making misleading statements about your sex life.
I don't remember Bill Clinton being convicted of perjury.
Because he didn't committ any, that's why. If anyone should have been convicted, it should have been Starr and congressional Republicans for malicious prosecution.
You're only saying that because you don't like the party in power.
You do know that all the fired USA's were Republicans, right? If this was just a matter of not liking Republicans, Democrats in Congress would be happy to see Republicans going down the drain, but that's not the case. But it looks like your elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor.
No one can competently argue the firings were illegal.
Hardly. They can be fired for no reason or any reason. They can't be fired for an illegal reason.
was the fired attorney's failure to prosecute politically important cases.
Thos "poltically important cases" were bogus charges against Democrats in order to help get Republicans elected. See the above part about illegal reasons.
In other words, this is a nothing story, seemingly motivated by political opportunism. It saddens me that you've allowed yourself to be duped so easily.
It's sad that you are too thick to see what a disaster it has been to turn the Department of Justice into the Department of Politics. As one of the fired attorneys explained, credibility is like being pregnant: you either have it, or you don't. It's old hat for people who get indited to claim that their prosecution is poltically motivated, and those claims have always been dismissed - but not any more. Take, for example, the case of a USA that indited three Democrats in her district but no Republicans. Or how the CEO of Qwest was indited, after the company refused to play ball with the NSA wiretapping. Or how Bill Frist was cleared of insider trading - was he actually innocent, or was it whitewash for a team player? Maybe there were a bunch of bad Dems in that district, or the Qwest CEO was guilty as sin, and Frist clean as a wistle - but these are questions we wouldn't have been asking a year ago.
The only crime in the Lewinsky case was lying about it under oath
No, the real "crime" was taking the White House away from the GOP, and the Republicans set out to remedy that by any means necessary. It's not perjury if it's not relevant, and the judge ruled that wether or not Bill had a consensual, blow job affair with Monica was irrelevant to wether or not he sexually harrased Paula Jones.
Except that in both the Watergate and Lewinsky case an actual crime was being covered up.
What crime was being covered up in the Lewinsky case?
In the Lewinsky case, perjury in a civil suit being brought against Bill Clinton for actions before he was President(BTW, the reason the Lewinsky affair was relevant to that case was to demonstrate a pattern of behavior
Nope, sorry, thanks for playing. Aside from the quibbling over the definition of "sexual relations", the judge ruled that wether Bill got it on with Monica in a consensual tryst was completely irrelevant to wether or not he sexually harrased Paula Jones. If it's not relevant, it's not perjury. No crime was committed, other than congressional Republicans spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan witchunt.
No, he didn't. Starr wanted to use a definition of "sexual relations" so broad that brushing past someone on a narrow bus or airplane aisle could be considered "sex". Clinton rightfully complained, so "sexual relations" was narrowed to "penis in vagina". So, if he had said yes, he had "sexual relations" with Monica, he actually would have been lying, as blowjobs are not sticking a penis in a vagina.
to avoid losing a sexual harassment lawsuit.
No, because it was noneoftheirfuckingbusiness, thankyouverymuch. And the judge ruled that wether or not he got it on with Monica was completely irrelevant to wether or not he harrased Paula Jones.
That is the crime that the Republicans impeached him for.
No, the crime was "whatever they could come up with." It was a witchunt, pure and simple.
If it can make a buck by dissing the right, it will do so
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The media is so terrified of being hit with the "biased liberal media" tag that they consistently throw softballs to Republicans while playing hardball with Democrats. For a recent example, check out the comparison between the first questions asked at the Democratic debate and the first questions at the Republican debate.
Somewhere (don't remember where, so maybe take this with a grain of salt) I saw some numbers for it: reporters are liberal, editors are conservative.
The vast majority of owners are conservative, but the "liberal reporter" myth comes from the fact that the majority of reporters do tend to vote Democratic. But Democrat != liberal.
Your analogies are poor and you don't seem know what you are talking about.
They called it Domestic Spying you work up lefties like yourself, not because its true.
Lets see: spying is when someone is watching you without you knowing it. Domestic means within the country. So, spying on you in this country is...drumroll...domestic spying.
You can intercept international mail as well as internation calls without a wiretap.
Mail entering the country can be searched at any time for any reason by U.S. customs. Not so with phone calls. If one end of an international phone call is in the U.S., the person in the U.S. is still protected by the Constitution, and you need a warrant to wiretap those phonecalls.
Slashdot Mirror
And how do you prove it was caused by neglect, eh? Do you want women who end up in the hospital with a miscarriage to get a visit from a detective or be brought before a grand jury because she might have been negligent?
Because he committed the crime of actually having a plan for the country, he's a nutjob.
No, he's viewed as a nutjob because...he's a nutjob, like all Libertarians. Libertarianism has no answer for our health care problems or global warming. Not to mention the fact that wanting the federal government to be cut to the bone yet state governments should be free to do whatever the hell they want (they say the Bill of Rights only applies to the Feds - so states would be free to wiretap or torture to their hearts content) makes no damned sense whatsoever.
Roe vs Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the states.
Except of course that states have no more business restricting abortion than they do in restricting speech or sending the National Guard to stay in people's homes.
It's not about changing your mind. It's about evaluating why someone held their previous position.
And what of Obama's "new" position on NASA is contrary to any previous position he had on NASA?
Obama is the guy that just the other night (in that quasi-debate-format thing he attended with McCain in Colorado) who, when asked about when "human" life begins in the womb (as it relates, of course, to the abortion issue) said "that's above my pay grade." Wow.
It was pretty obvious he was referring to God. So it's no surprise that the wingnuts missed it, and of course no surprise that they also ignored the next sentences coming out Obama's mouth that explained his position on abortion.
Why stork, you sound almost rational today. Are you feeling well?
Obama is just a left wing pol
He's not left wing by any stretch of even a drug assisted imagination. Being to the left of Dick Cheney doesn't make him a a "left wing pol" any more than Ted Kennedy is an arch-conservative because he's to the right of Fidel Castro.
Where Kerry had a problem was that he made a political career out of being a total pacifist
Pacifists don't generally volunteer for duty. In wartime.
but then he turned around and voted for the Invasion of Iraq in 2002 to get pick up a few votes and then ran not as a Dove but as a Wartime leader during the Democratic convention. That's a huge flip flop.
Ah yes, flip flops. Did you know that George Bush took credit for legislation in Texas that allowed patients to sue their HMO's that he actually, um, vetoed as governor? That made him the undisputed king of flip flops until Mitt Romney and John McCain started running for president this year.
But anyway, John Kerry. It's not a question of either being a "Dove" or a "Wartime Leader", you ignorant boob (that's more like it, stork), it's a question of using the right amount of force. Something of which only two Republicans have had an inkling about in the last 100 years: Eisenhower and George H. W. Bush.
between expecting that no one will see you when you go into town (totally unreasonable) and not wanting every move you make to be permanently stored in a searchable video database. Unless you do something to attract someone's attention, they're going to forget about you. In about three seconds. Whereas with the increasing amounts of computing power and the decreasing costs of storage, if this kind of footage isn't being stored, permanently, it soon will be.
The old someone-has-it-worse-off-than-you-so-be-grateful argument only serves those who want to keep that status quo for their own benefit. The measuring stick should be what comparable countries are doing. If people living in Seoul can get over 50 Mbs connections for less than $50 per month, there's no reason why people living in San Francisco or Sidney shouldn't be able to do the same. If people living in rural Sweden or Norway can get 20+ Mbps connections for less $$$ than Comcast charges in the U.S., there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do the same in Nebraska or Western Australia.
The problem isn't the technology, it's executive complacency and greed. That you have it worse than I do doesn't mean I'm lucky, it just means that you have to put up with more bullshit.
In parts of Europe and Asia you can get a better residential connection than your typical college has in the U.S. For a fraction of the cost that a residential customer in the U.S. pays to Comcast. Even in countries with a lower population density.
Crappy net access in the U.S. has little to do with paying for infrastructure and a whole lot to do with executive complacency and greed.
Not only are you drinking Apple's Kool Aid, it's old Kool Aid. it's been months since I've found anything that's exclusive to iTunes apart from the special live performances they offer.
Yes, because your musical tastes are so powerful they overwhelm basic mathematics so Amazon's 2.3 million songs are more than iTunes' 6 million+ songs.
If you aren't impressed by Apple's products, here's a simple solution for you. Apple doesn't market the Macbook Air as so perfect that Jesus H. Christ couldn't do any better himself. Jobs doesn't threaten to come by your house and kick your dog if you don't buy an iPod. If you don't like their products....drumroll....don't fucking buy them. But "a product you don't want to buy" != "sucks", so don't be surprised if you continue to pick up donuts if you continue to talk that way.
Now thats an opinion that can be debated, and has been a million times.
Which one would that be?
Starr was not Paula Jones' lawyer.
Your point being?
Bill Clinton lied under oath in the lawsuit that Paula Jones had filed against him.
Splitting hairs is not lying.
That was the lie under oath that led to his impeachment.
Lying under oath is not a crime. Lying under oath about a relevant issue *is* a crime, but the judge ruled that Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case. Know what else is a crime? Malicious prosecution, and the Republicans in Congress should have been taken to the cleaners for it.
Of course it's not, because the judge might not see things the same way you do, and might throw your butt in jail for contempt of court.
Where are you getting your information from?
IANALE (I am not a lawyer either), but I talk to people who are.
However, I do like to get my facts straight, so if you've got some good evidence, I'm willing to listen.
Sure thing. First link is on the judge ruling that Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, and in the fourth paragraph of the second link:bada bing bada boom. Since there was no perjury, the Republicans in Congress who pushed through impeachment (many of whome had had affairs of their own, or in Gengrich's case, had affairs *during* the impeachment trial) should have been thrown in jail for malicious prosecution.
He lied under oath.
No, he didn't. He split hairs about the definition "sexual relations" while under oath, which is completely different.
That's perjury.
No, it's not. For a lie to be perjury, it has to be relevant. If Fitzgerald asked Libby how much he weighed and he answered 150 pounds when he knew he weighed 200 pounds, it's not perjury because it wasn't relevant to the Valerie Wilson case. And the judge in the Paula Jones case ruled that even if Bill lied through his teeth about having a consensual fling with Monica, that it was irrelevant to whether or not he harrased Paula Jones.
The impeachment of Bill Clinton wasn't about perjury, it was Republicans trying to get rid of him by any means necessary. Whitewater didn't work. Vince Foster didn't work. So they investigated and reinvestigated to come up with something, and decided a perjury trap would have to do. If Congress spent tens of millions investigating you, and gave a judge unlimited time, resources, and scope of investigation, you'd do pretty well if the worst thing they would come up with was you making misleading statements about your sex life.
I don't remember Bill Clinton being convicted of perjury.
Because he didn't committ any, that's why. If anyone should have been convicted, it should have been Starr and congressional Republicans for malicious prosecution.
You're only saying that because you don't like the party in power.
You do know that all the fired USA's were Republicans, right? If this was just a matter of not liking Republicans, Democrats in Congress would be happy to see Republicans going down the drain, but that's not the case. But it looks like your elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor.
No one can competently argue the firings were illegal.
Hardly. They can be fired for no reason or any reason. They can't be fired for an illegal reason.
was the fired attorney's failure to prosecute politically important cases.
Thos "poltically important cases" were bogus charges against Democrats in order to help get Republicans elected. See the above part about illegal reasons.
In other words, this is a nothing story, seemingly motivated by political opportunism. It saddens me that you've allowed yourself to be duped so easily.
It's sad that you are too thick to see what a disaster it has been to turn the Department of Justice into the Department of Politics. As one of the fired attorneys explained, credibility is like being pregnant: you either have it, or you don't. It's old hat for people who get indited to claim that their prosecution is poltically motivated, and those claims have always been dismissed - but not any more. Take, for example, the case of a USA that indited three Democrats in her district but no Republicans. Or how the CEO of Qwest was indited, after the company refused to play ball with the NSA wiretapping. Or how Bill Frist was cleared of insider trading - was he actually innocent, or was it whitewash for a team player? Maybe there were a bunch of bad Dems in that district, or the Qwest CEO was guilty as sin, and Frist clean as a wistle - but these are questions we wouldn't have been asking a year ago.
The only crime in the Lewinsky case was lying about it under oath
No, the real "crime" was taking the White House away from the GOP, and the Republicans set out to remedy that by any means necessary. It's not perjury if it's not relevant, and the judge ruled that wether or not Bill had a consensual, blow job affair with Monica was irrelevant to wether or not he sexually harrased Paula Jones.
Do you not understand that the perjury was a coverup?
It wasn't perjury.
Except that in both the Watergate and Lewinsky case an actual crime was being covered up.
What crime was being covered up in the Lewinsky case?
In the Lewinsky case, perjury in a civil suit being brought against Bill Clinton for actions before he was President(BTW, the reason the Lewinsky affair was relevant to that case was to demonstrate a pattern of behavior
Nope, sorry, thanks for playing. Aside from the quibbling over the definition of "sexual relations", the judge ruled that wether Bill got it on with Monica in a consensual tryst was completely irrelevant to wether or not he sexually harrased Paula Jones. If it's not relevant, it's not perjury. No crime was committed, other than congressional Republicans spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan witchunt.
Like Watergate, Lewinsky, and many other scandals the cover-up is much worse than the original misguided activities.
"Lewinsky" wasn't the result of obstruction of justice, it was the result of a witchunt.
Bill Clinton lied under oath
No, he didn't. Starr wanted to use a definition of "sexual relations" so broad that brushing past someone on a narrow bus or airplane aisle could be considered "sex". Clinton rightfully complained, so "sexual relations" was narrowed to "penis in vagina". So, if he had said yes, he had "sexual relations" with Monica, he actually would have been lying, as blowjobs are not sticking a penis in a vagina.
to avoid losing a sexual harassment lawsuit.
No, because it was noneoftheirfuckingbusiness, thankyouverymuch. And the judge ruled that wether or not he got it on with Monica was completely irrelevant to wether or not he harrased Paula Jones.
That is the crime that the Republicans impeached him for.
No, the crime was "whatever they could come up with." It was a witchunt, pure and simple.
If it can make a buck by dissing the right, it will do so
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The media is so terrified of being hit with the "biased liberal media" tag that they consistently throw softballs to Republicans while playing hardball with Democrats. For a recent example, check out the comparison between the first questions asked at the Democratic debate and the first questions at the Republican debate.
Somewhere (don't remember where, so maybe take this with a grain of salt) I saw some numbers for it: reporters are liberal, editors are conservative.
The vast majority of owners are conservative, but the "liberal reporter" myth comes from the fact that the majority of reporters do tend to vote Democratic. But Democrat != liberal.
Oh, most of the people in "the media" are liberal
If that were the case we'd be in the last years of Al Gore's presidency right now.
Your analogies are poor and you don't seem know what you are talking about.
They called it Domestic Spying you work up lefties like yourself, not because its true.
Lets see: spying is when someone is watching you without you knowing it. Domestic means within the country. So, spying on you in this country is...drumroll...domestic spying.
You can intercept international mail as well as internation calls without a wiretap.
Mail entering the country can be searched at any time for any reason by U.S. customs. Not so with phone calls. If one end of an international phone call is in the U.S., the person in the U.S. is still protected by the Constitution, and you need a warrant to wiretap those phonecalls.