So you have no problem that he put his hand on a Bible and lied under oath? nm
Posted By: sm on 2005-08-27
In Reply to: I too think it was a PERSONAL matter. It's unfortunate that the - Democrat
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
And my politics and faith are hand in hand. Plus I'm just answering her question.
x
The 2 issues you describe usually go hand-in-hand.
keep women out of power. The old 'barefoot-and-pregnant' story. As a feminist, I wouldn't vote for a candidate who was against EITHER issue. Being pro-choice has nothing to do with hating babies, etc. Pro-choice has to do with keeping a very personal, private choice just that: Personal & Private, between a woman and her doctor, and no-one else. If a woman hasn't any power over her OWN reproductive system, and whether or not the time is right (if ever) to bear a child, she certainly isn't going to be given much else to be in charge of, either.
The only reason this issue EVER became a hotbed political issue is that the religious fanatics in this country, who have been trying to control the reins of government, picked an issue that was certain to divide people. They took this choice out of the doctor's office and put it in the public eye so that the country could be divided, and in that way 'conquered'. Have to hand it to 'em, some of the campaign tactics, as repugnant as they are, have been pretty slick. Shows they've got some pretty fancy lawyers. The terrorist tactics (threatening, and even sometimes killing) docs who perform TABs; harrassing women entering family-planning clinics; and chasing some family planning clinics out of some towns.
There used to be a clinic a few blocks from my home, and every Friday this looney-tune and his whacked-out buddies would block park a truck with pictures of fetuses on it, and would block an entire sidewalk with their signs, fake babies (dolls), themselves, etc. I guess they think they're scaring people with their pictures & signs, but it only serves to infuriate them. In large part, the attempts to overthrow Roe vs Wade by the religious lunatics of the world is one of the main reasons I stopped voting Republican after Ronald Reagan, and voted Democratic instead.
And then of course there is the issue of our jobs. When that all started going down the toilet (or shall I say - to the Third World) I realized the 'trickle-down effect' I'd been led to believe when I was a Republican in the past was a lie. It doesn't trickle DOWN, the money only gushes UP -- to the ones who already have the most of it.
politics and religion go hand in hand...
Whether or not we like it, many of our laws are governed by religion. Without some sort of religion, who is to say that murder is "wrong," thus making it a religious argument, not a political one (by your methodology) and, yet, we still have a law against it.
I have seen some bullying get out of hand first hand
during the same grocery strikes that I referred to in the very small town where I grew up. Scabs were beat up and such. I am not saying it's the norm, but there can be tremendous pressure to vote one way or another--as can be seen right here.
Oath
He was nervous folks, wouldn't you be in front of millions? For Pete's sake, he has only been president since noon. Let the man take office and see what he can do. Lots of talk shows, etc., have been griping about him since November. Pretty lousy since he didn't take office until today. No, not one person can solve the world's problems, but let us pray that President Obama at least tries, not like the last 8 years.
Oooh, under OATH
Too bad Clinton didn't do what BUSH does routinely and simply REFUSE to be put under oath (9/11 commission? Have a cozy little chat, did they). Hard to slam anyone for lying under oath when they feel they are so above the law of the land that they aren't subject to taking the oath in the first place - and why should they have to when they've made it perfectly clear that anyone who even THINKS about opposing them is going to suffer - big time.
And haha - we're supposed to believe the SCOTUS is a moral authority on anything? Haha! They dumped their reputations in the toilet on the day they dirtied the Constitution by taking it upon themselves choose the next president rather than allowing the people of the United States to follow due process of law in electing their own president. If you're looking for noble champions of the people whose opinions you can cite to make your case, they aren't it. We all saw what they did, and history will record their shameful and traitorous ruling and will not be kind to them.
By the way, how's that overturning of Roe v. Wade going?:)
The president did an oath do over
with Roberts. I would think he was actually very nervous, which is understandable. Personally, I would have said every name but my own trying to get past I...(state your name). There is a Washington City Paper article about a law professor that states that Condoleeza Rice was actually president for a whole minute before Joe Biden was sworn in because they were running late, then Biden was president for a whole three minutes before Obama was sworn in. So the author states that Condoleeza Rice was actually the first female AND first black president. I don't know how much validity is given to this paper, but it is an interesting article so far. Obama was not the first president to flub the oath and apparently the reason for the do-over is because the constitution states the oath must be said word for word as it is written. The only thing that changes is your name.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/01/20/remember-when-biden-was-president/
Lying under oath is just that.
Lying under oath. There are no exceptions to this rule regardless of whether Bill's action on the side was our business or not. If he was so worried about protecting his daughter, he should have kept his pecker in his pants and away from Monica's mouth. He lied under oath...period.
Gonzales not required to take oath??
That just beats all. Why even have him testify if he is not required to tell the truth UNDER OATH? Not too hard to figure out where this is all coming from - reminds one of the way Bush visited with the 9/11 commission but refused to be put under oath.
The question is, and always has been - why is this administration so terrified of telling the truth?
The word is that Rove is threatening to withdraw all Republican funding and support from any Republican senator or representative who fails to fall in line with the administration's ambition of unbridled above-the-law autonomy. If they so much as make a peep about protecting the Constitution rather than dear leader, they're dead in the water. It's kind of pathetic watching them all sweat and stutter and grovel, heh - might even be entertaining if it wasn't such an important issue.
Perjury - lying under oath - How is it that
Bush swearing on the Bible and breaking his oath to the American people is "no big deal." Generalities, don't have all night to type here. Just answering that Clinton lied about sex, but Bush took us into an absolutely unfounded war for no good reason, with no good intelligence, Cheney knew in 1994 what would follow an invasion into Iraq, an absolute disaster of foreign policy, so I cannot give Bush any respect. And I do agree that the Dems who voted to give Bush free reign should not be voted back into office, and for your information, I, for one, will not vote for Hilary for the aforementioned reason. Our country has changed immensely in the last six years with all of this policital strife, the hate that Bush has evoked here and around the world, and the shame he has commanded. My prayer is that he does absolutely nothing for the next year and couple of months. Wish the windshield cowboy would take a long drive back to Crawford.
I see he couldn't even repeat the oath...
of office without it being repeated for him twice. Get the teleprompters ready!
What oath did he break? He swore to uphold the law of...
the United States. He has not broken that. I am not his biggest fan; there are a lot of things he has done that I do not agree with. There are many things he has done that I do agree with. I had a problem with a lot of the things Clinton did, but I did not hate the man. I absolutely do not understand the personal hatred some of you people feel for him. It just seems unreasonable and totally out of whack. Especially since he is gone no matter who is elected. Kinda wasted effort to expand all that energy hating someone.
What if Hillary is the Dem candidate and it is her or a Republican? You will vote for her then, right...? lol
Doctor's take the Hippocrates oath and have to abide...sm
by it or have their license pulled. It may not be illegal but is unethical. It is hard for me to believe a doctor would risk his license by talking about this on tape on the record. Do you have a verifiable source?
Again, doctors take the Hippocratic oath, do no harm etc. nm
.
If a doctor truly believed his hippocratic oath he would not be...
killing babies for ANY reason other than to save the life of the mother.
also, Obama did not flub the oath - the justice did - nm
x
You always forget the phrase *under oath*, which is what lost him his law license sm
and the respect of the Supreme Court Justices who for the first time in history, did not attend the State of the Union address of a sitting president. But I guess all that is okay, too.
IMO, he has already lied about
plenty of things, but so many people are just willing to overlook that because they still believe his rhetoric.
No lobbyists would have a place in Washington when he is president.....although I believe he has 12 now.
He would go line by line to take out pork in bills, would leave them online for so many days so it could be reviewed by all, etc. What a big lie and joke that was.
Taking a doctor's freedom away by refusing to allow him the option to refuse to perform an abortion. People grumble and gripe about taking their freedom away and for government to stay out of their uterus and yet they have no problem with taking away the free will of a doctor. Funny how it is wrong to take free will away from one group but it is okay to take it away from others who disagree with them. A doctor should have a right to refuse any procedure. The patient would just have to go to another doctor.
I don't care what Obama says or doesn't say.....I don't agree with him period. I do not want more government programs. I do not want more government control. I do not want the spreading of wealth by taking it away from hardworking tax payers and giving it to moochers and illegal immigrants. I do not want cap and trade.
You cannot buy your way out of debt and that is what our government is trying to do. I guess when it is all said and done, we can all turn in our guns and call each other comrade.
Yes, Clinton lied, and I
thought it was terrible when he did.
But Clinton's lies didn't result in a war. Clinton created a surplus. Bush squandered it all and created a huge deficit with his war. I'm amazed that you can't see the huge difference between the two lies. Bush's lies are placing every single American in danger of a terror attack because he refuses to do anything about the borders. This is here. This is now. Why don't you care about TODAY and the futures of your children and their children? We're living in the most dangerous era that America has known, yet you're more concerned about the sexual practices of a former President? I truly don't understand your way of thinking.
I never thought he lied. And I still don't. SM
Yep! Either lied or is incompetent...sm
One fact that's left out is that the head UN inspector urged to allow the inspections to continue and that the WMD that had been reported in the 90's had been mostly destroyed. Why do you think there is none to be found?
So the things the American public was bamboozled about in Iraq (not me) are:
1) Iraq was an imminent threat to the US. It is now in the wake of the war than ever. More of a threat that it was under Saddam.
2) There were WMD. They should have listened to the UN inspectors. Clinton bombed a good deal of the sites in Iraq that had WMD in his term.
3) Connection to 9-11. I'm still waiting on a sound theory for this.
2)
Course it matters. He lied.
VA's have a policy. No demonstrating or protesting on their grounds. It's what laws are for. He said he wasn't protesting but he was lying. Now, in those VA beds are soldiers who were probably wounded in battle. This kind of this does not belong in the VA. Period. Rules are rules.
Bush lied
Bottom line still remains that SADDAM HUSSEIN, himself, could have stopped the whole thing by simply abiding by the U.N. resolutions.
He also lied to Cindy about his age.
He's 17 years older than her. A stupid thing to lie about. He lies just to lie. He lied when he said he would pick a VP who could step into the presidency. (Of all the women in the GOP, this was the best he could do?) He lies about drilling and how that will help the people with gas prices....laughable, but he keeps lying about that too.
Like when SP lied and said her teleprompter
didn't work and it didn't work for like 2 seconds, but she wanted to sound good so she said she didn't have the teleprompt and just winged the speech. Yep, like that.
Obama just sat that and lied through his
Obama also says he hasn't had anything to do with Ayers and that Ayers hasn't been involved with him. AYERS is the very man who jump started Obama's campaign fundraiser. He started the whole thing going! Does he have a conscience?
I didn't and don't like being lied to
and that is exactly what we got from George W. Bush. I was speaking of the events of 9/11 period. What part of that did you not understand?
plumber lied about
his plans to buy a business as he had no money. No plumbing license. Owed back taxes. Was on welfare. He was a fictious dupe who tried to grab the spotlight for his own fortune. How's that book and record deal going?
The story isn't that he lied. (sm)
After the last eight years, some of us EXPECT Republicans to lie. The story is that he ADMITTED to lying. Won't he get thrown out of the GOP for daring to tell the truth? 
As far as this being a one-sided story, it is what it is. I doubt that you would withhold posting a story about Obama lying...if you had a legitimate one that could be documented as being truthful. Instead, you guys invent negative stories about Obama with no corroboration, and when asked for a link to your "story," instead of providing one, you hurl personal negative insults at the poster.
When I heard this whole "once upon a time" story, it reminded me of Hillary's fake story about dodging snipers.
Jindal and Hillary Clinton. Both politicians, different parties. Both liars who invented entire life experiences that were lies, and both who should have been smart enough to know they would eventually get caught.
As far as whether it's okay for one to lie and not the other, I happen to believe it's NOT okay for ANY OF THEM to lie, regardless of party affiliation.
When you've been lied to
why watch more of the lies. It's obvious on this board that there are a lot of elitist who think that all crats are "brilliant" yet they have no desire to find out the truth of what is happeneing. I already know what is tryng to be accomplished. I don't appreciate being lied to about it. There is no intelligence they are spewing, just more hate, fear-mongering and paranoia upon their supporters. If I want intelligence I will read and watch every single piece of information I can get my hands on from both sides and make up my own mind whether or not I believe it.
Yes, we do want socialism/communism to fail. If you can't understand that, well that my dear is very sad and pathetic in itself.
And calling us un-American because we don't agree with you? Well that statement in itself it un-American. Maybe you should read up on history because you evidently don't know the history of our country and what our founding fathers fought for and died for.
so you don't think pelosi lied?
You think she's above board, an asset to her party?
Still think Bush lied about Iraq?
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Still think Bush lied?
thanks for the link...yep, she flat out lied
Lying seems to be the whole premise of the McCain campaign and she jumped right on board!!!
Obama once again lied - see message
Henry Kissinger was just interviewed. He said he never said to sit down with "no preconditions". Once again another reason I don't trust Obama.
You have lied to the wrong person here.
someone who has familiarity with the Quran, please cite the verses (ayat) and chapters (sura) where you find this information. Do not cite rightwing blogs or hate chambers.
There are so many ways to expose your ignorance here, it is hard to know where to start. Here's a clue for you. There is a distinction in the Quran between Believers (Muslims), People of the Book (Dhimmi), Disbelievers (Kafiroon) and Infidels (Kaafir). You general term of "non-Muslims" applied to the second group....the People of the Book. Bottom line here is that the Quran teaches tolerance and respect for Dhimmi. Not unlike the Christian Bible, it is also riddled with contractions and passages can be found where adversarial relationships are described.
I have lived in a Muslim country. I was treated with nothing but respect, kindness, friendship and hospitality. My sister has lived in a Muslim country for 14 years now. She has enjoyed the same experience.
The only hatemongering going on here is spewing from your own mouth. Whatever it is you have been reading or watching is making a liar out of you. If you care, do something about it. If not, then bone up on your own Holy Book and check out what the Bible has to say about the liars and give it some careful consideration.
ALL Americans are being lied to and screwed over -
by government, utilities, oil companies, tobacco industry, healthcare industry, insurance industry, auto industry, food industry, etc. The list is so long, that probably the easier way to do it would be to list who ISN'T screwing Americans:
1. Ummmm..... hmmmm.....
Let me get back to ya on that one; I can't find anyone who isn't screwing us.
okay, I read them, but I do not see where Obama lied??? nm
x
Obama lied about smoking too....... sm
Are you going to be watching for what else he lied about?
Barack Obama was on Meet the Press Sunday, and moderator Tom Brokaw put the president-elect's feet to the fire: MR. BROKAW: Finally, Mr. President-elect, the White House is a no-smoking zone, and when you were asked about this recently by Barbara Walters, I read it very carefully, you ducked. Have you stopped smoking? PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: You know, I have, but what I said was that, you know, there are...
http://www.eaglevuedaily.com/?p=224
The real story isn't that he lied. (sm)
After the last eight years, some of us EXPECT Republicans to lie. The real story is that he ADMITTED to lying. Won't he get thrown out of the GOP for daring to tell the truth?
As far as this being a one-sided story, it is what it is. I doubt that you would withhold posting a story about Obama lying...if you had a legitimate one that could be documented as being truthful. Instead, you guys invent negative stories about Obama with no corroboration, and when asked for a link to your "story," instead of providing one, you hurl personal negative insults at the poster.
When I heard this whole "once upon a time" story, it reminded me of Hillary's fake story about dodging snipers.
Jindal and Hillary Clinton. Both politicians, different parties. Both liars who invented entire life experiences that were lies, and both who should have been smart enough to know they would eventually get caught.
As far as whether it's okay for one to lie and not the other, I happen to believe it's NOT okay for ANY OF THEM to lie, regardless of party affiliation.
I know...they lied through the teeth....we had to switch channels....and they were on....sm
everywhere else too. Only dems, only one rep that I saw.
Tell a lie (and/or a bunch of lies) often enough, and it becomes the truth according to them, as reported and supported by the media.
Sickening really.
Obama lied, economists cried...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/obama_lied_economists_cried.html
Bush lied and thousands died!
Reaping the rewards.
*Gasp!* Jindal LIED???? LOLOLOLOL - thanks!!!
nm
Anita Hill lied - there were two sides to the case
Only Thomas and Hill know what really happened. When this case was ongoing I was a democrat, yet I believed Thomas. People need to read the case and decide for themsleves. Just because Anita Hill said there was sexual harrassment doesn't mean it's true. I was on jury duty for a full week for a girl who said her boyfriend raped her. With her crying on the witness stand and carrying on I believed she was. On the fifth day we were all dismissed from duty, the girl told her lawyer that he really did not rape her and she made it up because she was made at him. Please don't go by just the link below either. Do some more researching, but from what I read of this article I don't think it's leaning towards one or the other side. All I'm saying is there are two sides of the story. By your post I'm sure if he was a democrat who wasn't getting ready to look over the info about the O you would praise him as a great judge.
http://volokh.com/posts/1191302418.shtml
If they hadn't lied - we wouldn't be in this war with a faceless enemy....nm
x
of course he lied - but no one died - he had a young daughter to protect...
All men would lie - when, in fact, it was nobody's freakin' business........that was Hillary's problem
Obama lied to the country. "No earmarks"
nm
Bush lied and our brave patriotic soldiers died..PERIOD
Of course Bush lied about WMD and the threat of Iraq..He needed a reason to invade Iraq..If you would do some research you would find many papers that document meetings between Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and others who devised a way to take over the Middle East in the 1990's..all they needed was a way to present it to the American people, as we would not allow our children to die for no reason. With 9/11, they got the reason and tried to tie up 9/11 with Iraq..I, frankly, think they also had a hand in 9/11..For any who poo poo this..I ask you to do some surfing on the Northwoods Operation..same kind of thing, only in the 1960's..Let a few CIA Hispanic/Cuban operatives invade a few curise ships on Floridas coast, kill a few Americans and we would definitely agree to invading Cuba and killing Casto..Our govt did not agree to it, however, 9/11 seems to me like an updated plan..there are many who also wonder was this an inside job..
hand ups?
On a prior post, I dont know which conservative one of them posted to me that democrats only give hand outs, republicans give hand ups. I asked her to post what hand ups republicans ever have given to the poor and disadvantaged and all I got was a tirade about democrats promoting welfare, etc..the usual baloney from republicans..I still would like the poster to give me a few examples of what ever have republicans done to help the poor of America.
On the other hand....
Since all you guys couldn't see any big deal with Clinton's lying, you should'nt be losing too much sleep over this.
on the other hand
if a teacher was teaching a geography class and was teaching say on Israel. If he/she brought up say the name, Jesus Christ, and gave his opinion about Christ (let's assume the teacher is pro Jesus Christ) then I think his head would have rolled. He wouldn't be on leave. He would be fired immediately.
I heard the excerpts of this tape and the guy was off the deep end and basically giving a political diatribe. If a teacher cannot talk about religion and reiterate their beliefs I think the same should go for politics. Heck, I took three different POLITICAL science classes between the time I went to high school and graduated college, and all those teachers managed not to go off on a diatribe about a particular politician or a political group. As a class we did discuss the differences, but the teachers remained professionally neutral. I think a geography teacher should be professional and objective enough to teach geography without calling someone Hitler.
The darned thing about free speech is that it needs to be applied to everyone not just the viewpoints that one particular group agrees with. I have no problem with free speech as long as the opposite viewpoint is welcomed too. This does not seem to be happening in public schools. It seems one particular political viewpoint wants to hold a monopoly on free speech, and monopolozing free speech is basically nullifying it.
|
