If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... What do *you* believe was his lie? Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link: http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie. But according to sound logic it is entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie. At any rate, what a president does in his private life, as long as it's not criminal, unconstitutional and has no affect on his sworn duties, is no ones business but his. What Clinton did in his private life was never an issue. |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
... [...] If all that was visible were the various vote tallies and numerous voters were casting their ballots simultaneously, how would they know for sure? Um...maybe I'm missing something. If votes are cast simultaneously (or nearly so), how does a voter know that the change in the tally represents his vote? Or that the change in the tally of a different candidate does NOT represent his vote? Non-simultaneous voting has the entirely different problem already pointed out. There is of course the issue regarding vote tallys being known to voters prior to the closing of the polls, a big no-no in practically every US election I'm aware of. Granted, there are some issues with my scenario. Indeed. Pete |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:53:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in . net:: Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." I've had some trouble parsing your sentences above, but here's a fair analysis of the issue: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...jury092498.htm Clinton asserted his answers were technically accurate. He considered an affair to mean intercourse and interpreted "sexual relations" not to include oral sex performed on him. "Sexual relations" was defined as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person." However, Marriam-Webster's definition is: Main Entry:sexual relations Function:noun plural Date:1950 : COITUS Main Entry:coitus Pronunciation:*k*-*-t*s, k*-**-, *k*i-t*s Function:noun Etymology:Latin, from coire Date:1855 : physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also : INTERCOURSE 3 compare ORGASM –coital \-t*l\ adjective –coitally \-t*l-*\ adverb So, while Clinton's statement may not have agreed with the legal definition of 'sexual relations', his statement appears to have been consistent with the accepted meaning of the phrase. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
"Peter Duniho" wrote "Nick Danger" wrote in message . .. Sorry, that's a bunch of BS. If you expect to communicate clearly with another person you must use words that you both know the meaning of, you cannot use words that can be misinterpreted, unless you intend to deceive the other person right from the start. You mean like saying things like "we know for a fact that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?" Yes, exactly like that. Although in that particular case you might have a problem proving that Bush outright lied - he may have been relying on some pretty lousy intelligence information when he made that statement. Or, he may have been lying. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:04:46 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in :: If votes are cast simultaneously (or nearly so), how does a voter know that the change in the tally represents his vote? That's also a problem. Oh well... |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
Tien,
I don't want to talk politics on a rec.aviation.piloting Google Group. Some get it. You do not!!!!! I have great health because I work at it. I had a MERRY CHRISTMAS not a "holiday". You really do need your lithium!. LYNN |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
John,
You really should use an alias. It took less than 10 seconds to narrow your address down to three possibilites in WI & one in MD. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:53:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in . net:: Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." I've had some trouble parsing your sentences above, but here's a fair analysis of the issue: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...jury092498.htm Clinton asserted his answers were technically accurate. He considered an affair to mean intercourse and interpreted "sexual relations" not to include oral sex performed on him. "Sexual relations" was defined as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person." However, Marriam-Webster's definition is: Main Entry:sexual relations Function:noun plural Date:1950 : COITUS Main Entry:coitus Pronunciation:*k*-*-t*s, k*-**-, *k*i-t*s Function:noun Etymology:Latin, from coire Date:1855 : physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also : INTERCOURSE 3 compare ORGASM –coital \-t*l\ adjective –coitally \-t*l-*\ adverb So, while Clinton's statement may not have agreed with the legal definition of 'sexual relations', his statement appears to have been consistent with the accepted meaning of the phrase. You better run for office as you use logic that only politicians can appreciate. That is almost as good as saying that Vietnam wasn't a war, but just a "police action." Matt |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message news On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:53:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in . net:: Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." I've had some trouble parsing your sentences above, but here's a fair analysis of the issue: I wrote only one complete sentence above. What part of, "Clinton lied repeatedly under oath.", are you having trouble parsing? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...jury092498.htm Clinton asserted his answers were technically accurate. He considered an affair to mean intercourse and interpreted "sexual relations" not to include oral sex performed on him. "Sexual relations" was defined as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person." However, Marriam-Webster's definition is: Main Entry:sexual relations Function:noun plural Date:1950 : COITUS Main Entry:coitus Pronunciation:*k*-*-t*s, k*-**-, *k*i-t*s Function:noun Etymology:Latin, from coire Date:1855 : physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also : INTERCOURSE 3 compare ORGASM -coital \-t*l\ adjective -coitally \-t*l-*\ adverb So, while Clinton's statement may not have agreed with the legal definition of 'sexual relations', his statement appears to have been consistent with the accepted meaning of the phrase. The term "sexual relations" was very specifically defined for use in the proceeding. "For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes . . . contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. . . . 'Contact' means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing." |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
"Nick Danger" wrote in message
... Yes, exactly like that. Although in that particular case you might have a problem proving that Bush outright lied - he may have been relying on some pretty lousy intelligence information when he made that statement. IMHO, he should have said something like "the CIA tells me they know for a fact..." I don't say that I know something unless I actually do. Bush obviously could not have known WMD existed, since they eventually turned out not to. So for him to claim he did know such, had to be a lie. In my opinion, since Bush did not *personally* know of the WMD, his statements claiming unequivocable knowledge of them were lies. He probably doesn't see it that way, and I *know* all those Bush supporters out there don't see it that way. But I certainly do. His statements made NO allowance for the possibility that there was an error, misdirection, or outright untruth in the information he was providing. I realize people are sloppy with the way they say things, but isn't that the entire point to this whole subthread? People on both sides of the fence use words in an ambiguous and incorrect way in order to try to give an impression of something other than the truth. After the fact, they equivocate, claiming ignorance or splitting hairs or somesuch. In all cases, they clearly had the underlying intent to deceive to some degree (whether about a blowjob or a war). Frankly, my biggest frustration was watching Powell present the so-called case to the U.N. I will grant that one assumes the "intelligence community" uses more information than he was able to present in that forum. But I certainly came away from his presentation thinking "um, so where did they actually prove there were WMD?" At best, he had presented a case for circumstantial evidence, and he certainly did not PROVE the case. Yet huge numbers of people accepted his hand-waving show as proof. As much as I might be critical of Bush for making what I perceive to be lies about Iraq, I object MUCH more to the way everyone was so willing to just follow along, even when the attempts to demonstrate the claims of WMD were true failed utterly. It was a real-life "Emperor's New Clothes" situation, and while Bush made full use of the situation, it couldn't have happened without the complacency of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other people in a position to question the claims. The whole thing is disgusting. I can't think of a single federal politician who can claim taking the side of truth and justice, Democrat *or* Republican. They all make me angry. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aircraft Spruce: Abused Customers and Fourteen More Angry Comments -- More to Come | jls | Home Built | 2 | February 6th 05 08:32 AM |
If true, this makes me really angry (Buzzing Pilot kills 9 year-old son) | Hilton | Piloting | 2 | November 29th 04 05:02 AM |
millionaire on the Internet... in weeks! | Malcolm Austin | Soaring | 0 | November 5th 04 11:14 PM |
JEWS AND THE WHITE SLAVE TRADE | B2431 | Military Aviation | 16 | March 1st 04 11:04 PM |
Enemies Of Everyone | Grantland | Military Aviation | 5 | September 16th 03 12:55 PM |