>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:28:15 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi
> ho' )"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:04:30 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi
>>> ho' )"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:50:50 GMT, linder.one@
osu.edu
>>>>> (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>And, according to police witnesses, TWO bullet wounds in the back of
>>>>>>>the head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really? What witnesses were those? Do you have a name? A police
>>>>>>report? Or are you just quoting some other loon who heard it from
>>>>>>some other loon?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell ya what, Linderloon
>>>>>
>>>>> Give us the names of all those "witnesses" who ever saw
>>>>> or heard the Clintons do anything criminal, immoral
>>>>> (more than reagan)
>>>>>
>>>>Wait a minute. First you want anything criminal and now you want "more
>>>>than [R]eagan".
>>>
>>> ??
>>>
>>> Reagan lied--
>>>
>>> "Lying" is the underpinning of all conservative whining
>>> about Clinton. Yet when Reagan lied, that was okay.
>>>
>>When did Reagan "lie"?
>
> "We did not sell arms to Iran".....and 142 times "I
> don't remember"----pointdexter deposition.
>
Is that the best you can do, claiming that "lying" for Reagan is what
isn't "lying" for Clinton?
>>> Reagan stopped Congress from oversight of Foriegn
>>> Policy in the conduct of illegally selling arms to
>>> Iran--which is subversion of Constitutional government
>>>
>>Reagan didn't know about the diversion to the Contras. The Iran effort
>>was within his powers as president.
>
> THose witnesses who were not indicted for perjury,
> suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice----ALL
> said that your drooling sonofabitch WAS aware (at least
> as much aware as a fucking turnip could be)
>
Aware of what?
> Ollie North said DEFINITELY that "Reagan knew"
>
About the diversion? That was in North's office. Cite that.
>>> Reagan funneled arms, weapons to murdering dictators
>>> all over the globe---reducing our moral authority to
>>> the very people he said he was helping----for his
>>> personal aggrandizement.
>>>
>>You are a kook.
>
> Then you believe mcreagan when he says:
>
>>======================================================
>
>>The Afghan Mujahadeens are the moral
>>equivalent of the Founding Fathers of America."
>
Those people were fighting to free themselves from the yoke of
oppression of the Soviet Union. They deserved our support, you kook.
>> -Ronald Reagan
>
>>> Reagan then was called before a Grand Jury and
>>> committed Perjury----another conservative "principle"
>>> that was used to smear clinton (Clinton never did lie
>>> in the Jones Deposition, ya know)
>>>
>>Really? So when Clinton said that he'd never been alone with Lewinsky,
>>that was true?
>
> Clinton said he could not remember-----taken to mean
> that WHERE someone was present (and not seen) might
> have been the case.
>
Now that is just absurd. He was getting blow jobs. He was claiming no
"sexual relations". He was asked if he were ever alone with her. He
wasn't asked to assume if someone could've been a "peeping tom" while
they were going at it, he was asked if they were alone. He lied.
> Perjury would require an answer that fulfilled the
> strict definition of "lying under oath" as defined by
> Congress---(Perjury)----that was NEVER done.
>
What are you talking about?
> Whether or not Clinton was alone with Lewinsky---had
> NOTHING to do with the case being asked about.
>
He sure got in trouble for his lying, didn't he?
> Even Kenny "Scaifepaid" Starr could find no
> corroboration to prove Clinton was "alone" with Her.
>
It's not illegal to be alone with Lewinsky even if it's not a good idea.
> Stick that in your ass, Bonde.
>
>>> So what is it that I'm letting Clinton "off the hook
>>> for" calling Reagan worse?
>>>
>>I was making fun of the levels of response you were making, you wanted
>>to be shown one thing Clinton did, and then you wanted to be shown what
>>he did that was worse than that evil Reagan.
>
> But Clinton did nothing comparable----either legally or
> morally. Reagan deliberately lied about his role in
> Iran Contra---decisions that subverted Constitutional
> government (congressional oversight responsibilities).
>
Congress was trying to control the executive which was the violation,
not the other way around.
> He lied in a Grand Jury investigation, then lied to the
> American people. He later admitted he lied (committed
> perjury) Thank god that democrats weren't as fucked up
> as republicans and didn't impeach the lying sack of
> shit.
>
He did not lie.
>>> You Still haven't offered ANY credible evidence that
>>> Clinton committed ANY crime---other than "unproven
>>> allegation, rumor, story and lie"
>>>
>>You haven't done that for Reagan.
>
> Where in fuck have you been, Bondeloon?
>
> Iran/Contra is a classic scandal that eventually turned
> reagan's little empire into the "most criminal
> administration in history"---by virtue of who was
> indicted, their rank in the adminstration, and the
> seriousness of their felonies.
>
Reagan was the most successful president since FDR. The waste of time
attacks on him for Iran-Contra were purely politically motivated.
>>>>How about does that fit in with
>>>>your claim to not believe anything at all criminal was done by the
>>>>Clinton. Oh, BTW, the witness was a Tyson Foods pilot who personally
>>>>delivered bribe money to the Clintons. That's illegal, you know.
>>>
>>> ONE (1) Accusation cannot be used to credibly
>>> substantiate a crime.
>>>
>>He testified that he delivered the bribes from Tyson Foods to the
>>governor's mansion. What do you want?
>
> ONE persons testimony cannot fulfill the required legal
> foundation to go from "unproven allegation" to
> supported evidence.
>
What are you talking about?
>>
>>> "Multiple SINGLE accusations" cannot (in our legal
>>> system) be used as evidence to supprt any criminal
>>> indictment.
>>>
>>What are you talking about?
>
> Well, there ya go
>
> You look up why the "multiple-single accusations" (to
> any given act) are not sufficient to bring criminal
> action against anyone.
>
> ALL of the "Single accuser" claims made by Broaddrick,
> Jones, etc, could not legally support a claim of
> "sexual harassment" against clinton because only ONE
> (1) person would give testimony for that crime. Flowers
> (supposedly) was mutual. Lewinsky was mutual---
>
> Lumping "multiple" accusations together isn't legally
> accepted.
>
You are insane.
>>> No matter how many "Single accusers" flock to
>>> accuse---they cannot lend credence to bolster a
>>> "theory".
>>>
>>Can you cite the law on this one? People who know that something
>>happened don't count?
>
> Where is your brain, stupid
>
> If some woman comes to your door and kicks the living
> shit out of you---and the ONLY witness, OR evidence is
> YOUR allegation---the police would laugh at you (given
> the fact that no other evidence existed)
>
That is just not true.
> The "law" is legal doctrine. That's why the Jones
> Civil action failed---because the " multiple
> accusations" could not support a "pattern" in order to
> prove clinton did to Jones what she claimed
>
> It's basic law---and YOU can go to "
Findlaw.Com" and do
> your own fucking homework
>
Why don't you cite that for me?
>>> That doctrine has been the basic underpinning of our
>>> rule of law for a long time----which is why those
>>> Scaife paid "accusers" didn't pass the laugh test
>>> against Clinton(s)
>>>
>>Really? So is that why Clinton paid $850K?
>
> Civil suits are ENTIRELY about money
>
Only if they are entirely about money, which they don't have to be, you
goof.
> Why would any rational person, who had already won the
> case, "re-win" it with a cost attached in the millions
> for defense?
>
> The low estimate was $2.5--3.7 Million to take the case
> to a jury.
>
> Even a dumb asshole like you would figure that
> no-brainer out bonde.
>
Clinton paid. Clinton lost. Give it up.
> BTW, If he would have spent the money, the legal
> community would have made the bet that he would re-win
> given the fact the original judgment said that "Jones
> had no case"---and ALL of her evidence and testimony
> was taken as "factual" and "True"-----She still lost.
>
The problem isn't that Clinton didn't do what Jones said, which it sure
looks like he did do, it's that sexual harassment is really designed to
deal with a different problem than what Clinton was doing. What Clinton
was doing to Jones really merited criminal charges.
> If Clinton "re-won", he would be out the 3-4 million
> (plus what he already owned Bob Bennet, etal) and the
> only thing he'd get is a "win"---no money, nothing
> else.
>
Clinton had to pay $850K.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
bitch got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
