AROCES Posted October 24, 2008 #26 Share Posted October 24, 2008 It wasn't PURGERY until he lied. The point is that it amounts to criminal implications for a domestic matter. It isn't anyones business who the Prez. is boinking unless her bottom hits a missle button and that isn't likely since there are no missile launch buttons in the Oval Office. There is a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him, he was asked to testify under oath.Meaning you have to tell the truth and if you lie you are commiting perjury. That is what got him in trouble, not because of any sexual activity. The impeachemnt is for Perjury, NOT BOINKING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted October 24, 2008 #27 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Follow the link. They've got the actual certificate. Why do I have to follow a link????? Who is they???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
explorer Posted October 24, 2008 #28 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Clinton should have been charged in accordance with the UCMJ and put in the brig. He was a liar and an adulterer. The lowest level recruit in the military would go to jail and be discharged for what he did. That piece of crap attempted to use the Soldiers and Sailors act to get out of a civil suit, claiming he qualified as Commander in Chief. If he wants to use a law designed to protect the military he supposedly leads, he should be held to the same standards as the LOWEST member in his chain of command. Isn't the Pres THE CIC? How could any Pres. be charged for alleged adultery under the UCMJ? Different rules for different fools. When did sexual relations affect the UCMJ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravergirl Posted October 24, 2008 #29 Share Posted October 24, 2008 There is a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him, he was asked to testify under oath.Meaning you have to tell the truth and if you lie you are commiting perjury. That is what got him in trouble, not because of any sexual activity. The impeachemnt is for Perjury, NOT BOINKING! It doesn't matter. He is no longer president and this is what we get now. The question whether or not one of the United States Presidential nominees is even AMERICAN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASOP Posted October 24, 2008 #30 Share Posted October 24, 2008 The birth certificate he showed was not real. If you are a U.S citizan what the hell is the big deal your running for president show your records what are you covering up? Obama cough it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexG Posted October 24, 2008 #31 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Why do I have to follow a link????? Who is they???? Because no one is going to Fedex you a certified copy of Obama's birt cert. YOU will never get to see it. THEY are factcheck.org. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted October 24, 2008 #32 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Because no one is going to Fedex you a certified copy of Obama's birt cert. YOU will never get to see it. THEY are factcheck.org. I know, no one actually gets to see the original. Maybe I should just digitally scan my Drivers License, and tell the officer but we allowed the President to use digitally scanned documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexG Posted October 24, 2008 #33 Share Posted October 24, 2008 I know, no one actually gets to see the original. You don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
explorer Posted October 24, 2008 #34 Share Posted October 24, 2008 It doesn't matter. He is no longer president and this is what we get now. The question whether or not one of the United States Presidential nominees is even AMERICAN. The birth certificate he showed was not real. If you are a U.S citizan what the hell is the big deal your running for president show your records what are you covering up? Obama cough it up. Proof by mere doubt or is it just another tedious smear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted October 24, 2008 #35 Share Posted October 24, 2008 You don't. Neither you nor anyone else. He is a Democrat, so he is exempted with the protection of his followers. The same people accusing Bush of breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexG Posted October 24, 2008 #36 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Neither you nor anyone else. He is a Democrat, so he is exempted with the protection of his followers. The same people accusing Bush of breaking the law. Factcheck.org has. But you don't like them, don't want to believe, and so you won't. This is just more of the same old same old from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiffSplitkins Posted October 24, 2008 #37 Share Posted October 24, 2008 "The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation." FWIW, Obama and Ayers were on the board of another organization - in Chicago - funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Very interesting Domain ID:D101518303-LROR Domain Name:FACTCHECK.ORG Created On:29-Sep-2003 18:02:43 UTC Last Updated On:11-Oct-2008 16:40:38 UTC Expiration Date:29-Sep-2010 18:02:43 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Register.com Inc. (R71-LROR) Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED Registrant ID:C36603267-RCOM Registrant Name:Brooks Jackson Registrant Organization:Annenberg Public Policy Center, UPenn Registrant Street1:320 National Press Building Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Washington Registrant State/Province:DC Registrant Postal Code:20045 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.2028796708 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email: Admin ID:031638143cdf7496 Admin Name:Brooks Jackson Admin Organization:Annenberg Public Policy Center, UPennAdmin Street1:320 National Press Building Admin Street2: Admin Street3: Admin City:Washington Admin State/Province:DC Admin Postal Code:20045 Admin Country:US Admin Phone:+1.2028796708 Admin Phone Ext.: Admin FAX: Admin FAX Ext.: Admin Email: Tech ID:C1-RCOM Tech Name:Domain Registrar Tech Organization:Register.Com Tech Street1:575 8th Avenue Tech Street2:11th Floor Tech Street3: Tech City:New York Tech State/Province:NY Tech Postal Code:10018 Tech Country:US Tech Phone:+1.9027492701 Tech Phone Ext.: Tech FAX:+1.9027495429 Tech FAX Ext.: Tech Email: Name Server:ns1.bootnetworks.com Name Server:ns2.bootnetworks.com Name Server:ns3.bootnetworks.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eqgumby Posted October 24, 2008 #38 Share Posted October 24, 2008 It wasn't PURGERY until he lied. The point is that it amounts to criminal implications for a domestic matter. It isn't anyones business who the Prez. is boinking unless her bottom hits a missle button and that isn't likely since there are no missile launch buttons in the Oval Office. Wrong! Of course this is totally off-topic at this point, but the Commander in Chief may NOT do the things Clinton did. He should have been charged, period. I attempted to press charges myself, but I was plainly and clearly told if I did, I'd find my self in a world of trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravergirl Posted October 24, 2008 #39 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Wrong! Of course this is totally off-topic at this point, but the Commander in Chief may NOT do the things Clinton did. He should have been charged, period. I attempted to press charges myself, but I was plainly and clearly told if I did, I'd find my self in a world of trouble. well maybe someone should have shot him, then we could revel in his boyish exploits as we do JFK. Or Jefferson or Jackson. Or wait, WAIT. The Commander in Chief may too do that, The Commander in Chief USUALLY does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eqgumby Posted October 24, 2008 #40 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Isn't the Pres THE CIC? How could any Pres. be charged for alleged adultery under the UCMJ? Different rules for different fools. When did sexual relations affect the UCMJ? Have you SEEN the UCMJ!!? The pres, as CIC, according to CLINTON, is considered ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY. All active duty military fall under the UCMJ. Period. Look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finsup22 Posted October 24, 2008 #41 Share Posted October 24, 2008 He lied under oath, IT WAS ON VIDEOTAPE! No sense discussing this further, you simply insist a cow is a horse. Im sorry but a spokesman for the PETA re-naming of animals Im going to have to issue you a warning, for the inproper usage of reclasification of cows. As we in the "Know", know the bovine species has been re-assigned as Chickens, not and I repeat NOT horse's. Please check With PETA before you reclasify an animal again. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexG Posted October 24, 2008 #42 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Have you SEEN the UCMJ!!? The pres, as CIC, according to CLINTON, is considered ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY. All active duty military fall under the UCMJ. Period. Look it up. Do you have a source for the CIC being Active Duty Military? The point of the constitution is that the CIC is a civilian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravergirl Posted October 24, 2008 #43 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Im sorry but a spokesman for the PETA re-naming of animals Im going to have to issue you a warning, for the inproper usage of reclasification of cows. As we in the "Know", know the bovine species has been re-assigned as Chickens, not and I repeat NOT horse's. Please check With PETA before you reclasify an animal again. Thank you. You are really bad at this PETA renaming thing. Cows are not chickens, they are Macro Bunnies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexG Posted October 24, 2008 #44 Share Posted October 24, 2008 (edited) You are really bad at this PETA renaming thing. Cows are not chickens, they are Macro Bunnies. If the new name doesn't conjure up a cute, cuddley image, we might still be tempted to eat them. On edit: Still, rabbit is supposed to be pretty good eats. Edited October 24, 2008 by AlexG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eqgumby Posted October 24, 2008 #45 Share Posted October 24, 2008 well maybe someone should have shot him, then we could revel in his boyish exploits as we do JFK. Or Jefferson or Jackson. Or wait, WAIT. The Commander in Chief may too do that, The Commander in Chief USUALLY does. And, what does this have to do with what we were discussing? I get that a lot from people..."Oh yeah, well...he's not the pres any more...besides JFK did it too!" So? What difference does it make? He got away with a crime, so what? That makes it OK? Great come back, which by the way, means noting. It still leaves us with... Clinton was a criminal, and he got away with it, and is still reaping the benefits of his crimes. He should have been removed from office for his behavior alone. And yes, I do expect MORE from the person who is in the Oval Office than from the guy that works at the 7-11 or the 18 year old soldier getting his *** shot at in the desert. DON'T YOU!!??!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted October 24, 2008 #46 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Factcheck.org has. But you don't like them, don't want to believe, and so you won't. This is just more of the same old same old from you. Factcheck.org I guess was to verify it officially for everyone and we just have to say, alright? Sounds like a KGB to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexG Posted October 24, 2008 #47 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Factcheck.org I guess was to verify it officially for everyone and we just have to say, alright? Sounds like a KGB to me. So who verifies it 'officially'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted October 24, 2008 #48 Share Posted October 24, 2008 So who verifies it 'officially'? You don't know that, HONESTLY? Why am I even arguing with you????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiffSplitkins Posted October 24, 2008 #49 Share Posted October 24, 2008 And, what does this have to do with what we were discussing? I get that a lot from people..."Oh yeah, well...he's not the pres any more...besides JFK did it too!" So? What difference does it make? He got away with a crime, so what? That makes it OK? Great come back, which by the way, means noting. It still leaves us with... Clinton was a criminal, and he got away with it, and is still reaping the benefits of his crimes. He should have been removed from office for his behavior alone. And yes, I do expect MORE from the person who is in the Oval Office than from the guy that works at the 7-11 or the 18 year old soldier getting his *** shot at in the desert. DON'T YOU!!??!! As long as we are off topic I gotta throw this one in... Aaaayyyyyyyyyyy!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexG Posted October 24, 2008 #50 Share Posted October 24, 2008 You don't know that, HONESTLY? Why am I even arguing with you????? Do you know? Who OFFICIALLY verifies the birth certificate? I would think it's up to whoever that is to lay any charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now