Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , CJT
wrote:



remove those protections. And that "innocent until proven guilty"
applies only in the context of criminal prosecution -- a failure to
convict does NOT necessarily mean the suspect didn't do the crime, and
does not even mean he won't be punished for the act under civil penalties.


This is hardly new. There has always been a lower level of evidence
needed in civil court. Heck if you are going to take umbrage at that
then you need to start a petition to free Al Capone. The feds only
nailed him through civil charges of tax evasion.

I'm not taking umbrage at it. I was just saying that one can be guilty
(of, for instance, cutting a deal with Iran to hang onto some hostages)
but not present enough evidence to prove criminality. It was another
poster who implied "innocent until proven guilty" meant innocent in
some absolute sense rather than just unconvictable.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

clifto wrote in
:

CJT wrote:
clifto wrote:
CJT wrote:
clifto wrote:
snip

Huckabee is a pro-life tax-and-spend Democrat in Republican Party
clothing.


If you can be honest for a moment, you will realize that the "tax
and spend" stereotype has not fit the Democrats in a long time (if
it ever did) and that it in fact better fits the Republicans
(although they often modify it slightly to "borrow and spend").


Just look at the party affiliation of the person who is responsible
for the recent doubling of the national debt.


Which of the 535 people do you mean?

the one in the White House -- you know, the one who proposes, and
signs, the budget

Ah, the one with no authority to spend money.


I read the other day that Congress authorizes the expenditures,but the
Executive is under no -obligation- to actually spend the money,particularly
in the bill's extensions,which may not be Constitutional.IOW,if an
authorization is in a bill's extension,that money could be withheld.
AFAIK,no President has actually tried this yet.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

clifto wrote:

CJT wrote:

Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:



We had a surplus under Clinton.


Two different items. A budget surplus is not the same as the national debt.
There was a national debt under Clinton.



Of course there was. But it didn't double on _his_ watch.


We managed to get a Republican-controlled Congress in.

Pretty much the same Republican-controlled Congress that spent like
drunken sailors once Bush came to power.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

clifto wrote:

CJT wrote:

clifto wrote:

CJT wrote:

clifto wrote:
snip

Huckabee is a pro-life tax-and-spend Democrat in Republican Party clothing.


If you can be honest for a moment, you will realize that the "tax and
spend" stereotype has not fit the Democrats in a long time (if it ever
did) and that it in fact better fits the Republicans (although they
often modify it slightly to "borrow and spend").


Just look at the party affiliation of the person who is responsible for
the recent doubling of the national debt.


Which of the 535 people do you mean?


the one in the White House -- you know, the one who proposes, and signs,
the budget


Ah, the one with no authority to spend money.

The one who managed to lie us into a trillion dollar war in Iraq.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote:
clifto wrote:
CJT wrote:
clifto wrote:
CJT wrote:
clifto wrote:
snip

Huckabee is a pro-life tax-and-spend Democrat in Republican Party clothing.


If you can be honest for a moment, you will realize that the "tax and
spend" stereotype has not fit the Democrats in a long time (if it ever
did) and that it in fact better fits the Republicans (although they
often modify it slightly to "borrow and spend").


Just look at the party affiliation of the person who is responsible for
the recent doubling of the national debt.


Which of the 535 people do you mean?


the one in the White House -- you know, the one who proposes, and signs,
the budget


Ah, the one with no authority to spend money.

The one who managed to lie us into a trillion dollar war in Iraq.

Tell me more about this lie.

Please don't try the bull**** about WMD, because we've seen the bodies
that were killed by the WMD.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

CJT wrote:
clifto wrote:
CJT wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:
CJT wrote:

We had a surplus under Clinton.


Two different items. A budget surplus is not the same as the national debt.
There was a national debt under Clinton.



Of course there was. But it didn't double on _his_ watch.


We managed to get a Republican-controlled Congress in.

Pretty much the same Republican-controlled Congress that spent like
drunken sailors once Bush came to power.

Sorta telling that the Repubs could come in and spend like drunken sailors
and still prevent Clinton from giving away the nation.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

clifto wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:


Surely you jest. "Small time break-in??"

Well, it was. Two guys break into an office to copy (not steal) information.
Just a prank.


And how does consensual sex with an adult constitute a "high crime?"

"Thou shalt not commit adultry!"

They don't get any higher than that.


Not to point out his straw man or anything, but I didn't have a problem with
Clinton getting blowjobs. I had a problem with him doing it on company time
on company premises and then lying about it under oath.

More likely you were just jealous.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

clifto wrote:

CJT wrote:

clifto wrote:

CJT wrote:

clifto wrote:

CJT wrote:

clifto wrote:
snip

Huckabee is a pro-life tax-and-spend Democrat in Republican Party clothing.


If you can be honest for a moment, you will realize that the "tax and
spend" stereotype has not fit the Democrats in a long time (if it ever
did) and that it in fact better fits the Republicans (although they
often modify it slightly to "borrow and spend").


Just look at the party affiliation of the person who is responsible for
the recent doubling of the national debt.


Which of the 535 people do you mean?


the one in the White House -- you know, the one who proposes, and signs,
the budget


Ah, the one with no authority to spend money.


The one who managed to lie us into a trillion dollar war in Iraq.


Tell me more about this lie.

Please don't try the bull**** about WMD, because we've seen the bodies
that were killed by the WMD.

Are you talking about the dead Iranians that Rumsfeld went to Iraq to
congratulate Saddam on?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

clifto wrote:

CJT wrote:

clifto wrote:

CJT wrote:

Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:


We had a surplus under Clinton.


Two different items. A budget surplus is not the same as the national debt.
There was a national debt under Clinton.



Of course there was. But it didn't double on _his_ watch.


We managed to get a Republican-controlled Congress in.


Pretty much the same Republican-controlled Congress that spent like
drunken sailors once Bush came to power.


Sorta telling that the Repubs could come in and spend like drunken sailors
and still prevent Clinton from giving away the nation.

Now you're talking gibberish.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article , CJT
wrote:


I'm not taking umbrage at it. I was just saying that one can be guilty
(of, for instance, cutting a deal with Iran to hang onto some hostages)
but not present enough evidence to prove criminality. It was another
poster who implied "innocent until proven guilty" meant innocent in
some absolute sense rather than just unconvictable.

But what you are talking about is criminal at best and probably
treason. So you have to stick with the evidentiary standard unless you
are just indulging in political rhetoric. Technically, nobody is ever
judged innocent, they are judged not guilty.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

I read the other day that Congress authorizes the expenditures,but the
Executive is under no -obligation- to actually spend the money,particularly
in the bill's extensions,which may not be Constitutional.IOW,if an
authorization is in a bill's extension,that money could be withheld.
AFAIK,no President has actually tried this yet.

Used to try it all the time until around mid-70s. The Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 forbade Presidents from
impounding, or withholding, money that Congress had appropriated for
federal projects. But it permitted the President to ask Congress for a
recision, a cancellation or cutback, of any appropriation that was no
longer needed. Note ASK Congress.

In article , CJT
wrote:


The one who managed to lie us into a trillion dollar war in Iraq.
Interesting that he was able to do this with a Clinton holdover as
head of the CIA.

In article , CJT
wrote:

More likely you were just jealous.

You obviously never saw the line of women who came forward over the
years to talk about various transgressions.

Jim Yanik wrote:

I read the other day that Congress authorizes the expenditures,but the
Executive is under no -obligation- to actually spend the
money,particularly in the bill's extensions,which may not be
Constitutional.IOW,if an authorization is in a bill's extension,that
money could be withheld. AFAIK,no President has actually tried this
yet.

Not exactly correct. Many presidents have withheld final spending (Thomas
Jefferson was the first). Nixon tried "impoundment" of funds allocated by
Congress. He was sued and the courts ordered that he spend the appropriated
funds.

"In 1974, with Nixon's Presidency in its death throes, Congress passed the
Budget Control Act of 1974, which stripped the President of the power of
impoundment... it [the Budget Control Act] totally marginalized the
President as a major player in the game of budgetary politics, and the
budget went out of control."

However, it is the current president's position that hundreds, if not
thousands, of "earmarks" were dropped into the final bill without committee
hearings and, as such, are not properly part of the resulting appropriation.
Currently, the president has his legal staff looking into the matter.

CJT wrote:

Please don't try the bull**** about WMD, because we've seen the
bodies that were killed by the WMD.

Are you talking about the dead Iranians that Rumsfeld went to Iraq to
congratulate Saddam on?

Heck, if I'd had the money *I* would have congratulated Sadaam in person
over the millions of dead Iranians.

As it was, all I could afford at the time was a card that said "Well Done!"

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , CJT
wrote:



I'm not taking umbrage at it. I was just saying that one can be guilty
(of, for instance, cutting a deal with Iran to hang onto some hostages)
but not present enough evidence to prove criminality. It was another
poster who implied "innocent until proven guilty" meant innocent in
some absolute sense rather than just unconvictable.


But what you are talking about is criminal at best and probably
treason. So you have to stick with the evidentiary standard unless you
are just indulging in political rhetoric. Technically, nobody is ever
judged innocent, they are judged not guilty.

OJ was judged not guilty. Does that mean he didn't do it?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , CJT
wrote:



The one who managed to lie us into a trillion dollar war in Iraq.

Interesting that he was able to do this with a Clinton holdover as
head of the CIA.

What's your point? Clinton was long gone.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

Please don't try the bull**** about WMD, because we've seen the
bodies that were killed by the WMD.


Are you talking about the dead Iranians that Rumsfeld went to Iraq to
congratulate Saddam on?


Heck, if I'd had the money *I* would have congratulated Sadaam in person
over the millions of dead Iranians.

As it was, all I could afford at the time was a card that said "Well Done!"


So WMD's are good, as long as it's your guy using them, according to
Republicans. Interesting.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article , CJT
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , CJT
wrote:



I'm not taking umbrage at it. I was just saying that one can be guilty
(of, for instance, cutting a deal with Iran to hang onto some hostages)
but not present enough evidence to prove criminality. It was another
poster who implied "innocent until proven guilty" meant innocent in
some absolute sense rather than just unconvictable.


But what you are talking about is criminal at best and probably
treason. So you have to stick with the evidentiary standard unless you
are just indulging in political rhetoric. Technically, nobody is ever
judged innocent, they are judged not guilty.

OJ was judged not guilty. Does that mean he didn't do it?

Nope. But neither does it mean he did. It does mean that there
was sufficient evidence to go to trial, something that did not occur
with this. Also, using this argument you really should change your view
on the Clinton impeachment. Afterall, we have a confession from him that
he did indeed lie under oath. That and the plea bargain. Otherwise, I
have to conclude that you are a hypocrit and plonk you.

In article , CJT
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , CJT
wrote:



The one who managed to lie us into a trillion dollar war in Iraq.

Interesting that he was able to do this with a Clinton holdover as
head of the CIA.

What's your point? Clinton was long gone.

My point is that Tenant (whose major intelligence coups before that
were bombing a Sudanese aspirin factory and the Chinese Embassy in
Kosovo) was a Clinton appointee. As such, that would have to mean that a
Democrat was a major conspirator in the "lie" that took place. So, it is
real interesting to me that the Clinton holdover would participate in
that kind of a deal. If it occurred.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Nope. But neither does it mean he did. It does mean that there
was sufficient evidence to go to trial, something that did not occur
with this. Also, using this argument you really should change your
view on the Clinton impeachment. Afterall, we have a confession from
him that he did indeed lie under oath. That and the plea bargain.
Otherwise, I have to conclude that you are a hypocrit and plonk you.

There's nothing wrong with hypocricy. 85% of gynecologists are males.

CJT wrote:

Are you talking about the dead Iranians that Rumsfeld went to Iraq
to congratulate Saddam on?


Heck, if I'd had the money *I* would have congratulated Sadaam in
person over the millions of dead Iranians.

As it was, all I could afford at the time was a card that said "Well
Done!"
So WMD's are good, as long as it's your guy using them, according to
Republicans. Interesting.

WMDs are like dynamite or bowling balls. They can be misused.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:43:10 -0600, CJT wrote:

So WMD's are good, as long as it's your guy using them, according to
Republicans. Interesting.

As it turned out, WMD was a good reason to invade Iraq (so says the
Pres). But then when no WMDs were found, another excuse (terrorists)
was given. Whatever happened to the "War on Drugs?" or did we lose
that one too?

In article ,
Phisherman wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:43:10 -0600, CJT wrote:

So WMD's are good, as long as it's your guy using them, according to
Republicans. Interesting.

As it turned out, WMD was a good reason to invade Iraq (so says the
Pres). But then when no WMDs were found, another excuse (terrorists)
was given. Whatever happened to the "War on Drugs?" or did we lose
that one too?

We lost that one when Nixon gave Elvis a DEA badge....

In article , CJT
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:


What's your point? Clinton was long gone.


My point is that Tenant (whose major intelligence coups before that
were bombing a Sudanese aspirin factory and the Chinese Embassy in
Kosovo) was a Clinton appointee. As such, that would have to mean that a
Democrat was a major conspirator in the "lie" that took place. So, it is
real interesting to me that the Clinton holdover would participate in
that kind of a deal. If it occurred.

So the buck stop anyplace but Bush's desk. After all, he had every
opportunity to change staff. And you want to call _me_ a hypocrite!

Actually that is one of the nicer things I want to call you (g).
However, MY point is that if it was a lie it would require a Democrat
and part of the last administration to be an active and willing
participant in the lie. My point was not that it was Clinton's fault,
but that it was patently outside the realm of possibility that the Dem
Clintonite would participate in the lie.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , CJT
wrote:


Kurt Ullman wrote:



What's your point? Clinton was long gone.


My point is that Tenant (whose major intelligence coups before that
were bombing a Sudanese aspirin factory and the Chinese Embassy in
Kosovo) was a Clinton appointee. As such, that would have to mean that a
Democrat was a major conspirator in the "lie" that took place. So, it is
real interesting to me that the Clinton holdover would participate in
that kind of a deal. If it occurred.

So the buck stop anyplace but Bush's desk. After all, he had every
opportunity to change staff. And you want to call _me_ a hypocrite!


Actually that is one of the nicer things I want to call you (g).
However, MY point is that if it was a lie it would require a Democrat
and part of the last administration to be an active and willing
participant in the lie. My point was not that it was Clinton's fault,
but that it was patently outside the realm of possibility that the Dem
Clintonite would participate in the lie.

People change. Furthermore, some Presidents refuse to listen to facts
that contradict their prejudices (Bush is notorious for that), and
sometimes their underlings bow to the pressure.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

On Jan 21, 9:04*pm, CJT wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , CJT
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

What's your point? *Clinton was long gone.

* * My point is that Tenant (whose major intelligence coups before that
were bombing a Sudanese aspirin factory and the Chinese Embassy in
Kosovo) was a Clinton appointee. As such, that would have to mean that a
Democrat was a major conspirator in the "lie" that took place. So, it is
real interesting to me that the Clinton holdover would participate in
that kind of a deal. If it occurred.

So the buck stop anyplace but Bush's desk. *After all, he had every
opportunity to change staff. *And you want to call _me_ a hypocrite!

* * *Actually that is one of the nicer things I want to call you (g).
However, MY point is that if it was a lie it would require a Democrat
and part of the last administration to be an active and willing
participant in the lie. My point was not that it was Clinton's fault,
but that it was patently outside the realm of possibility that the Dem
Clintonite would participate in the lie.

People change. *Furthermore, some Presidents refuse to listen to facts
that contradict their prejudices (Bush is notorious for that), and
sometimes their underlings bow to the pressure.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. *Our true address is of the form .- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is unfortunate but you describe a character trait of every
president during my lifetime.