Ohio recount complete, Bush beats Kerry by 118k+ votes

[quote name='The_Continental']I guess the law only applies in respect to the "matter at hand"...

I should have figured. :whistle2:s

[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='helava']Oh, come on. The *only* reason that Clinton's infidelity brought "disgrace and discredit upon the office of the president" is because the right wing freakshow saw the opportunity to drag him through the mud over something totally meaningless and trivial, and in the process wasted millions upon millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of the President's time doing so.

seppo[/quote]

So lying under oath is trivial??

:roll:[/quote]

When it has nothing to do with the matter at hand.....yes[/quote][/quote]

That is the definition of law.
 
No, this is the definition of law.

law
noun

1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.

2.
a.The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.
b.The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior.

3. A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law.

4. A piece of enacted legislation.

5.
a.The system of judicial administration giving effect to the laws of a community: All citizens are equal before the law.
b.Legal action or proceedings; litigation: submit a dispute to law.
c. An impromptu or extralegal system of justice substituted for established judicial procedure: frontier law.

6.
a. An agency or agent responsible for enforcing the law. Often used with the: “The law... stormed out of the woods as the vessel was being relieved of her cargo” (Sid Moody).
b. Informal. A police officer. Often used with the.

7.
a. The science and study of law; jurisprudence.
b. Knowledge of law.
c. The profession of an attorney.

8. Something, such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned authority: The commander's word was law.

9.Law
a. The body of principles or precepts held to express the divine will, especially as revealed in the Bible.
b. The first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures.

10. A code of principles based on morality, conscience, or nature.

11.
a.A rule or custom generally established in a particular domain: the unwritten laws of good sportsmanship.
b.A way of life: the law of the jungle.

12.
a. A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.

b. A generalization based on consistent experience or results: the law of supply and demand.
13. Mathematics. A general principle or rule that is assumed or that has been proven to hold between expressions.
14. A principle of organization, procedure, or technique: the laws of grammar; the laws of visual perspective.

intr.v. lawed, law·ing, laws
To go to law; litigate.

Idioms:
a law unto (oneself)
A totally independent operator: An executive who is a law unto herself.

take the law into (one's) own hands
To mete out justice as one sees fit without due recourse to law enforcement agencies or the courts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old English lagu, from Old Norse *lagu, variant of lag, that which is laid down. See legh- in Indo-European Roots.]
 
From The American Heritage Dictionary - where is the "matter at hand" part?

1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority. 2a. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law. b. The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior. 3. A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law. 4. A piece of enacted legislation. 5a. The system of judicial administration giving effect to the laws of a community: All citizens are equal before the law. b. Legal action or proceedings; litigation: submit a dispute to law. c. An impromptu or extralegal system of justice substituted for established judicial procedure: frontier law. 6a. An agency or agent responsible for enforcing the law. Often used with the: “The law . . . stormed out of the woods as the vessel was being relieved of her cargo” (Sid Moody). b. Informal A police officer. Often used with the. 7a. The science and study of law; jurisprudence. b. Knowledge of law. c. The profession of an attorney. 8. Something, such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned authority: The commander's word was law. 9. Law a. The body of principles or precepts held to express the divine will, especially as revealed in the Bible. b. The first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures. 10. A code of principles based on morality, conscience, or nature. 11a. A rule or custom generally established in a particular domain: the unwritten laws of good sportsmanship. b. A way of life: the law of the jungle. 12a. A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity. b. A generalization based on consistent experience or results: the law of supply and demand. 13. Mathematics A general principle or rule that is assumed or that has been proven to hold between expressions. 14. A principle of organization, procedure, or technique: the laws of grammar; the laws of visual perspective.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']From The American Heritage Dictionary - where is the "matter at hand" part?

1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority. 2a. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law. b. The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior. 3. A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law. 4. A piece of enacted legislation. 5a. The system of judicial administration giving effect to the laws of a community: All citizens are equal before the law. b. Legal action or proceedings; litigation: submit a dispute to law. c. An impromptu or extralegal system of justice substituted for established judicial procedure: frontier law. 6a. An agency or agent responsible for enforcing the law. Often used with the: “The law . . . stormed out of the woods as the vessel was being relieved of her cargo” (Sid Moody). b. Informal A police officer. Often used with the. 7a. The science and study of law; jurisprudence. b. Knowledge of law. c. The profession of an attorney. 8. Something, such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned authority: The commander's word was law. 9. Law a. The body of principles or precepts held to express the divine will, especially as revealed in the Bible. b. The first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures. 10. A code of principles based on morality, conscience, or nature. 11a. A rule or custom generally established in a particular domain: the unwritten laws of good sportsmanship. b. A way of life: the law of the jungle. 12a. A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity. b. A generalization based on consistent experience or results: the law of supply and demand. 13. Mathematics A general principle or rule that is assumed or that has been proven to hold between expressions. 14. A principle of organization, procedure, or technique: the laws of grammar; the laws of visual perspective.[/quote]

[Frank Booth]American Heritage?! F.uck that shit! Oxford English![/Frank Booth]
 
To pay so much attention to a single transgression is to admit that there was very little to complain about in the first place.
 
[quote name='Firebrand']To pay so much attention to a single transgression is to admit that there was very little to complain about in the first place.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but that's just a dumb thing to say.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='Firebrand']To pay so much attention to a single transgression is to admit that there was very little to complain about in the first place.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but that's just a dumb thing to say.[/quote]
It was a natural thing to say. Life is an opportunity.
 
This makes me wonder whether your avatar is meant to be ironic...

[quote name='Firebrand']To pay so much attention to a single transgression is to admit that there was very little to complain about in the first place.[/quote]
 
Actually, so does this.

[quote name='Firebrand'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='Firebrand']To pay so much attention to a single transgression is to admit that there was very little to complain about in the first place.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but that's just a dumb thing to say.[/quote]
It was a natural thing to say. Life is an opportunity.[/quote]
 
Before you get ahead of yourself, I ask you to consider context. It was written in response to the Clinton posts, particularly the ones which focused on the infidelity issue.
 
[quote name='Firebrand']Before you get ahead of yourself, I ask you to consider context. It was written in response to the Clinton posts, particularly the ones which focused on the infidelity issue.[/quote]

Few give a rat's ass about the infidelity issue.
It's the lying under oath that pissed people off.
 
Indeed - it was Clinton's belief that he was "above the law" that angered so many.

[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='Firebrand']Before you get ahead of yourself, I ask you to consider context. It was written in response to the Clinton posts, particularly the ones which focused on the infidelity issue.[/quote]

Few give a rat's ass about the infidelity issue.
It's the lying under oath that pissed people off.[/quote]
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='Firebrand']Before you get ahead of yourself, I ask you to consider context. It was written in response to the Clinton posts, particularly the ones which focused on the infidelity issue.[/quote]

Few give a rat's ass about the infidelity issue.
It's the lying under oath that pissed people off.[/quote]

How do you think people would react if a scandal erupted in which Bush was having a sexual affair on the side?

I agree that it was illegal and immoral for Clinton to lie under oath, but I have to think that at least half of America was more outraged over the nature of the lie (IE his extra-maritial sex).
 
Actually, my estimate of the breakdown is more along the lines of:

60% - couldn't care less about the lying under oath stuff (and in fact often didn't know about it or understand it), but was titillated by the whole presidential blowjob thing
30% - couldn't care less about the lying under oath stuff (and in fact often didn't know about it or understand it) OR the blowjob thing
10% - hated Clinton and would take any excuse they could come up with to attack him. STILL mostly didn't know or understand the 'lying under oath' stuff.

Seriously, if you took a poll of America, I guarantee you 75%+ of the population have no clue about the lying under oath beyond some Jay Leno joke about the definition of the word 'is'.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']I guess the law only applies in respect to the "matter at hand"...

I should have figured. :whistle2:s

[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='helava']Oh, come on. The *only* reason that Clinton's infidelity brought "disgrace and discredit upon the office of the president" is because the right wing freakshow saw the opportunity to drag him through the mud over something totally meaningless and trivial, and in the process wasted millions upon millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of the President's time doing so.

seppo[/quote]

So lying under oath is trivial??

:roll:[/quote]

When it has nothing to do with the matter at hand.....yes[/quote][/quote]


Actually, what I was replying to was that it was trivial. Whether or not he had sex with Monica had nothing to do with Paula Jones. Now if he had sex with Paula Jones and lied about it under oath, that would be perjury, since that would be related to the case.
 
I love it. So, lying under oath about getting some side-nookie is worse than lying about going to war? Sure, you can say that Bush wasn't under oath, and you can say that Bush didn't *technically* lie (though you'd actually be completely, provably *wrong* if you said the latter), but give me a fucking break. That's like saying that jaywalking is worse than triple homicide.

Morons.
seppo
 
I love it. So, lying under oath about getting some side-nookie is worse than lying about going to war?

United States Constitution Article I, section 8, Clause 11: The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

You can lay a lot of blame on Bush for the situation and the escalation leading to it, but you can't blame all of it on him.
The president cannot declare war... that's Congress' duty.


Sure, you can say that Bush wasn't under oath, and you can say that Bush didn't *technically* lie (though you'd actually be completely, provably *wrong* if you said the latter), but give me a shaq-fuing break. That's like saying that jaywalking is worse than triple homicide.

I really don't care about the degrees, and whether or not one act is worse than the other. Wrong is wrong, especially when your misdeed brings dishonor and disrespect upon the lofty office of the President of the United States. Complaining about something like that is a fruitless endeavor.
 
re: responsibility: I lay a *lot* of blame at Congress' feet. They abdicated their responsibility to make the decision to go to war. I think that that's one of the worst things Congress has done in recent history, and every single person who voted for the authorization for use of force *without* the further approval of Congress should be forced to resign.

re: you not caring about the "degrees": Bullshit. That's the dumbest goddamn thing I've ever heard. If you really believe that, you're a complete fucking idiot.

seppo
 
Having George W. Bush as president

[quote name='JSweeney']...brings dishonor and disrespect upon the lofty office of the President of the United States.[/quote]
Run a search. You'll eventually come to the same conclusion.
 
[quote name='helava']
re: you not caring about the "degrees": Bullshit. That's the dumbest goddamn thing I've ever heard. If you really believe that, you're a complete shaq-fuing idiot.

seppo[/quote]

The point is that lying to a grand jury is against the law in ANY case, trivial or not. The law doesn't care about 'degrees', nor should it. If it did then it would cease to be objective and could not be applied equally, eliminating the principle of justice altogether.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']The law doesn't care about 'degrees', nor should it. If it did then it would cease to be objective and could not be applied equally, eliminating the principle of justice altogether.[/quote]

Of course the law cares about degrees. For any crime you care you name, there's more legal versions of it than eskimos have words for snow. First degree murder, second degree murder (hell, 'degree' is right in the name), assorted versions of manslaughter, homicide, and so on, just for the crime of killing someone. Realistically, the only thing that seperates them is how sever the prosecutor and jury thinks your crime is.
 
But murder is murder whether it's 1st degree, or second degree, or whatever. What you implied was that a lie about sex is not as bad as a lie about war. To the grand jury, it's identical. That's like saying murdering a homeless person isn't as bad as murdering the president. The crime is the same in the eyes of the law.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']The crime is the same in the eyes of the law.[/quote]
If it was, it would carry the same punishment, but it doesn't. So it isn't. So there. :p
 
re: you not caring about the "degrees": Bullshit. That's the dumbest goddamn thing I've ever heard. If you really believe that, you're a complete shaq-fuing idiot.

Considering that neither of them are going to have any further actions or sanctions against them for those actions, wrong and "more wrong" is a meaningless distinction. All it serves as is pointless fodder for people to argue even further.
 
Of course the law cares about degrees. For any crime you care you name, there's more legal versions of it than eskimos have words for snow. First degree murder, second degree murder (hell, 'degree' is right in the name), assorted versions of manslaughter, homicide, and so on, just for the crime of killing someone. Realistically, the only thing that seperates them is how sever the prosecutor and jury thinks your crime is.

Of course the law cares about the circumstances and various degrees of wrong-doing. But, since neither will get sanctions or reprocussions for thier actions, arguing whether Bush's lie or Clinton's lie is worse is pointless. They are completely different scenarios, and there is no apt comparision that could be made between them.
 
Sure you can argue which lie is worse. Simply look at which one's results were more or less harmful.
 
[quote name='jmcc']Sure you can argue which lie is worse. Simply look at which one's results were more or less harmful.[/quote]

You can, but what good does it do?
If you are completely dead set against war, and hate the idea of it, I could understand.

Unfortunately, most of this argument is fueled by partisan BS, and people are rallying to it because they hate Bush/Clinton.
I could care less. I have no great love nor great hatred for either of these two...I have a feeling that is something few others could say.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='jmcc']Sure you can argue which lie is worse. Simply look at which one's results were more or less harmful.[/quote]

You can, but what good does it do?[/quote]

Do you mean, what purpose does it serve or literally what "good" does it do? It serves to further strife by giving ammo for more arguing. I wouldn't say that's doing any "good," but it is doing something.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='jmcc']Sure you can argue which lie is worse. Simply look at which one's results were more or less harmful.[/quote]

You can, but what good does it do?[/quote]

Do you mean, what purpose does it serve or literally what "good" does it do? It serves to further strife by giving ammo for more arguing. I wouldn't say that's doing any "good," but it is doing something.[/quote]

Well, at least it has a purpose, right? :)
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Indeed - it was Clinton's belief that he was "above the law" that angered so many.[/quote]

Ahem... Bush has acted far more "above the law" than Clinton ever did:

1. Invading Iraq when they had not attacked us.
2. Initially blocking investigations into the 9/11 attacks.
3. Not fulfilling his National Guard service without any repercussions.

Etc., etc.

Clinton's lies never got anyone killed. Bush's have.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='The_Continental']Indeed - it was Clinton's belief that he was "above the law" that angered so many.[/quote]

Ahem... Bush has acted far more "above the law" than Clinton ever did:

1. Invading Iraq when they had not attacked us.
2. Initially blocking investigations into the 9/11 attacks.
3. Not fulfilling his National Guard service without any repercussions.

Etc., etc.

Clinton's lies never got anyone killed. Bush's have.[/quote]

Vince Foster...
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='The_Continental']Indeed - it was Clinton's belief that he was "above the law" that angered so many.[/quote]

Ahem... Bush has acted far more "above the law" than Clinton ever did:

1. Invading Iraq when they had not attacked us.
2. Initially blocking investigations into the 9/11 attacks.
3. Not fulfilling his National Guard service without any repercussions.

Etc., etc.

Clinton's lies never got anyone killed. Bush's have.[/quote]

Vince Foster...[/quote]

Dan Casolaro...
 
[quote name='The_Continental'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='The_Continental']Indeed - it was Clinton's belief that he was "above the law" that angered so many.[/quote]

Ahem... Bush has acted far more "above the law" than Clinton ever did:

1. Invading Iraq when they had not attacked us.
2. Initially blocking investigations into the 9/11 attacks.
3. Not fulfilling his National Guard service without any repercussions.

Etc., etc.

Clinton's lies never got anyone killed. Bush's have.[/quote]

Vince Foster...[/quote]

Dan Casolaro...[/quote]

Does anyone want to explain how a Clinton lie caused either of these deaths? And even if it did, how that compares to the thousands killed on both sides in the Iraqi invasion?
 
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that after the years and years of attacks and investigations of Clinton, if he ever looked at Vince Foster funny, conservatives would have charged him by now.

I appreciate a good conspiracy theory, but this one doesn't hold any water.
 
Yeah - y'know, for once I'm gonna have to agree with you. It's always been my contention that all conspiracy theories are bullshit. All of 'em - no matter who's supposedly involved.

In order for a conspiracy to work - two things are necessary from those involved - competence and silence. Both of which I think are too much to ask for, esp of most politicians. I was just tryin' to have fun with you.

Sorry 'bout that.

[quote name='MrBadExample']I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that after the years and years of attacks and investigations of Clinton, if he ever looked at Vince Foster funny, conservatives would have charged him by now.

I appreciate a good conspiracy theory, but this one doesn't hold any water.[/quote]
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Speaking of which - I hate having to slap people when they try to tell me that a UFO crashed in New Mexico 60 years ago.[/quote]

As well you should. It didn't crash, it landed.
 
](*,)

[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='The_Continental']Speaking of which - I hate having to slap people when they try to tell me that a UFO crashed in New Mexico 60 years ago.[/quote]

As well you should. It didn't crash, it landed.[/quote]
 
It's ironically stupid that not a single Democratic Senator would give his signature to allow members of the House to discuss the 2000 Election which was much mroe questionable.

But now in 2004, though it's a close election it is clear that President Bush legitimately won outright fair and square, they get a Senators signature to discuss it on the floor of the senate.

It boggles the mind.
 
The one thing that it will do is highlight the various acts of voting suppression and disenfranchisement that went on in Ohio.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']The one thing that it will do is highlight the various acts of voting suppression and disenfranchisement that went on in Ohio.[/quote]

I assume you mean the ones by MoveOn.org using intimidation by sitting at the polls? Maybe there should be one for Wisconsin too where the 20 Republican voter vans had their tires slashed the morning of the election by Democrat activists?

It's also humorous how the head of the Democrat party was talking about how the election was fair and relatively-problem free on TV during election day when the exit polls were indicating Kerry was going to win by quite a bit. Of course, after he lost, it all becomes rigged! :lol:
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Yeah - y'know, for once I'm gonna have to agree with you. It's always been my contention that all conspiracy theories are bullshit. All of 'em - no matter who's supposedly involved.
[/quote]

You tell them Continental.

After all, the Watergate conspiracy was a pack of lies, right from the start. :wink:
 
Watergate was a conspiracy for about five minutes - until (like I said) silence and competence failed to work in unison. After that, it was really more of a scandal.

Thanks for providing an example to illustrate my point. :D


[quote name='camoor'][quote name='The_Continental']Yeah - y'know, for once I'm gonna have to agree with you. It's always been my contention that all conspiracy theories are bullshit. All of 'em - no matter who's supposedly involved.
[/quote]

You tell them Continental.

After all, the Watergate conspiracy was a pack of lies, right from the start. :wink:[/quote]
 
[quote name='Ruined'][quote name='ZarathosNY']The one thing that it will do is highlight the various acts of voting suppression and disenfranchisement that went on in Ohio.[/quote]

I assume you mean the ones by MoveOn.org using intimidation by sitting at the polls? Maybe there should be one for Wisconsin too where the 20 Republican voter vans had their tires slashed the morning of the election by Democrat activists?

It's also humorous how the head of the Democrat party was talking about how the election was fair and relatively-problem free on TV during election day when the exit polls were indicating Kerry was going to win by quite a bit. Of course, after he lost, it all becomes rigged! :lol:[/quote]

LOL, Pwned!!11!
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Watergate was a conspiracy for about five minutes - until (like I said) silence and competence failed to work in unison. After that, it was really more of a scandal.

Thanks for providing an example to illustrate my point. :D


[quote name='camoor'][quote name='The_Continental']Yeah - y'know, for once I'm gonna have to agree with you. It's always been my contention that all conspiracy theories are bullshit. All of 'em - no matter who's supposedly involved.
[/quote]

You tell them Continental.

After all, the Watergate conspiracy was a pack of lies, right from the start. :wink:[/quote][/quote]

Conspiracy - A combination of two or more persons to commit a criminal or unlawful act, or to commit a lawful act by criminal or unlawful means.

Since there was more then one person involved in Watergate (Nixon wasn't tiptoeing around the Watergate hotel with a mic and tape recorder), Watergate can be properly labeled as a conspiracy to this day.

Political conspiracies happen every day, it's only the stupid conspirators (like G Gordon Liddy) that expose the crime. A reasonable person can't possibly believe that Clinton was 100% innocent of all of the conspiracies he was accused of, or that all of the campaign money that Rove spent was 100% legitimate.

Oh yeah, and sorry about torpedoing your "point" :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top