Cliff wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...39157920080320
[
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney,
was stripped of his ability to practice law on Thursday as a result of his
conviction in the CIA leak case.

Reminds me of.... what was his name? ... oh yeah. Bill Clinton

Except Libby can claim the moral high ground of the two.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick
Cheney,
was stripped of his ability to practice law on Thursday as a result of
his
conviction in the CIA leak case.

Reminds me of.... what was his name? ... oh yeah. Bill Clinton

Except Libby can claim the moral high ground of the two.

Why is that? Because he's a republican and the standards are different for
them? His crimes were obviously worse than Clinton's at least by legal
standards. But why is it I'm not surprised that the first response to a
crooked republican being disbarred by other lawyers is to bring up Bill
Clinton, as if he had anything to do with it? Could it be because wingers
can't admit when one of theirs has done something wrong and they think
bringing up someone else's wrong doing exonerates them? It doesn't and that
kind of thing goes under the heading of "him too". Like that means Libby
isn't a scum bag criminal and doesn't deserve to be behind bars? Give it a
rest. Libby is a criminal and should have done jail time. He got off Scot
free because of Bush. Clinton was not found guilty of a crime, and that
doesn't pertain to Libby in any way.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick
Cheney,
was stripped of his ability to practice law on Thursday as a result of
his
conviction in the CIA leak case.
Reminds me of.... what was his name? ... oh yeah. Bill Clinton

Except Libby can claim the moral high ground of the two.

Why is that? Because he's a republican and the standards are different for
them? His crimes were obviously worse than Clinton's at least by legal
standards. But why is it I'm not surprised that the first response to a
crooked republican being disbarred by other lawyers is to bring up Bill
Clinton, as if he had anything to do with it? Could it be because wingers
can't admit when one of theirs has done something wrong and they think
bringing up someone else's wrong doing exonerates them? It doesn't and that
kind of thing goes under the heading of "him too". Like that means Libby
isn't a scum bag criminal and doesn't deserve to be behind bars? Give it a
rest. Libby is a criminal and should have done jail time. He got off Scot
free because of Bush. Clinton was not found guilty of a crime, and that
doesn't pertain to Libby in any way.

Libby was the sacrificial goat thrown to the Democrats who would not let
up until they had blood, even though they could not find anyone guilty
of the alleged crime they went after. He took the hit for the team.

Clinton, on the other hand, was a solo act. He was disbarred from both
the Supreme Court and his home state of Arkansas for giving misleading
testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. He was also
impeached by the Senate, but you probably don't remember that.

Except Libby can claim the moral high ground of the two.

Why is that? Because he's a republican and the standards are different
for
them? His crimes were obviously worse than Clinton's at least by legal
standards. But why is it I'm not surprised that the first response to a
crooked republican being disbarred by other lawyers is to bring up Bill
Clinton, as if he had anything to do with it? Could it be because
wingers
can't admit when one of theirs has done something wrong and they think
bringing up someone else's wrong doing exonerates them? It doesn't and
that
kind of thing goes under the heading of "him too". Like that means Libby
isn't a scum bag criminal and doesn't deserve to be behind bars? Give it
a
rest. Libby is a criminal and should have done jail time. He got off
Scot
free because of Bush. Clinton was not found guilty of a crime, and that
doesn't pertain to Libby in any way.

Libby was the sacrificial goat thrown to the Democrats who would not let
up until they had blood, even though they could not find anyone guilty
of the alleged crime they went after. He took the hit for the team.

Why would the team have to "take a hit" if nobody did anything wrong?
Despite anything said, Libby was convicted in court of multiple felonies. He
had the best lawyers money could buy. I guess that means he actually did
something wrong. Maybe that's why he was disbarred even though Bush pardoned
him. There were others who also committed crimes but as is often the case
not all the guilty get punished equally, or like this case not at all.


Clinton, on the other hand, was a solo act. He was disbarred from both
the Supreme Court and his home state of Arkansas for giving misleading
testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. He was also
impeached by the Senate, but you probably don't remember that.

I think I remember it correctly, unlike you. Obviously your memory is faulty
because Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, not the
senate. The senate acquitted him. So not only are you wrong about that but
you also have forgotten that what Clinton did was a private matter and
shouldn't have gone to court in the first place. Libby committed crimes
directly related to his role as a highly placed government official. His
crimes were also part of a larger conspiracy and concerned the abuse of
government powers. Clinton's wrong doing was child's play compared to Libby,
Cheney, and Bush's crimes. When they are gone don't be surprised when we
learn they conducted all kinds of criminal activities they were able to hide
when in power. Because like John Dean said, they are the most crooked
administration in history. The most incompetent too.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
Except Libby can claim the moral high ground of the two.

Why is that? Because he's a republican and the standards are different

for

them? His crimes were obviously worse than Clinton's at least by legal
standards. But why is it I'm not surprised that the first response to a
crooked republican being disbarred by other lawyers is to bring up Bill
Clinton, as if he had anything to do with it? Could it be because

wingers

can't admit when one of theirs has done something wrong and they think
bringing up someone else's wrong doing exonerates them? It doesn't and

that

kind of thing goes under the heading of "him too". Like that means Libby
isn't a scum bag criminal and doesn't deserve to be behind bars? Give it

a

rest. Libby is a criminal and should have done jail time. He got off

Scot

free because of Bush. Clinton was not found guilty of a crime, and that
doesn't pertain to Libby in any way.

Libby was the sacrificial goat thrown to the Democrats who would not let
up until they had blood, even though they could not find anyone guilty
of the alleged crime they went after. He took the hit for the team.


Why would the team have to "take a hit" if nobody did anything wrong?
Despite anything said, Libby was convicted in court of multiple felonies. He
had the best lawyers money could buy. I guess that means he actually did
something wrong. Maybe that's why he was disbarred even though Bush pardoned
him. There were others who also committed crimes but as is often the case
not all the guilty get punished equally, or like this case not at all.



Clinton, on the other hand, was a solo act. He was disbarred from both
the Supreme Court and his home state of Arkansas for giving misleading
testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. He was also
impeached by the Senate, but you probably don't remember that.


I think I remember it correctly, unlike you. Obviously your memory is faulty
because Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, not the
senate. The senate acquitted him. So not only are you wrong about that but
you also have forgotten that what Clinton did was a private matter and
shouldn't have gone to court in the first place. Libby committed crimes
directly related to his role as a highly placed government official. His
crimes were also part of a larger conspiracy and concerned the abuse of
government powers. Clinton's wrong doing was child's play compared to Libby,
Cheney, and Bush's crimes. When they are gone don't be surprised when we
learn they conducted all kinds of criminal activities they were able to hide
when in power. Because like John Dean said, they are the most crooked
administration in history. The most incompetent too.

Hawke




Obviously, you don't know as much as you think you do about it.
Clintdud was NOT impeached for the blowjob, rather for lying during the
investigation, a crime.

Jim

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:P3YEj.126$Dv5.12@trnddc02...
Hawke wrote:

snip

I think I remember it correctly, unlike you. Obviously your memory is
faulty
because Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, not the
senate. The senate acquitted him. So not only are you wrong about that
but
you also have forgotten that what Clinton did was a private matter and
shouldn't have gone to court in the first place. Libby committed crimes
directly related to his role as a highly placed government official. His
crimes were also part of a larger conspiracy and concerned the abuse of
government powers. Clinton's wrong doing was child's play compared to
Libby,
Cheney, and Bush's crimes. When they are gone don't be surprised when we
learn they conducted all kinds of criminal activities they were able to
hide
when in power. Because like John Dean said, they are the most crooked
administration in history. The most incompetent too.

Hawke




Obviously, you don't know as much as you think you do about it. Clintdud
was NOT impeached for the blowjob, rather for lying during the
investigation, a crime.

Jim

And why did it come up during the "investigation," that he would have to lie
about a personal matter that was nobody's business in the first place?

Could it be that the hit was on, and that they were using a criminal
investigation to embarrass him into a corner? Hmm?

--
Ed Huntress

I think I remember it correctly, unlike you. Obviously your memory is
faulty
because Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, not the
senate. The senate acquitted him. So not only are you wrong about that
but
you also have forgotten that what Clinton did was a private matter and
shouldn't have gone to court in the first place. Libby committed crimes
directly related to his role as a highly placed government official.
His
crimes were also part of a larger conspiracy and concerned the abuse of
government powers. Clinton's wrong doing was child's play compared to
Libby,
Cheney, and Bush's crimes. When they are gone don't be surprised when
we
learn they conducted all kinds of criminal activities they were able to
hide
when in power. Because like John Dean said, they are the most crooked
administration in history. The most incompetent too.

Hawke




Obviously, you don't know as much as you think you do about it. Clintdud
was NOT impeached for the blowjob, rather for lying during the
investigation, a crime.

Jim

And why did it come up during the "investigation," that he would have to
lie
about a personal matter that was nobody's business in the first place?

Could it be that the hit was on, and that they were using a criminal
investigation to embarrass him into a corner? Hmm?

--
Ed Huntress


It may surprise some to know that I don't think Clinton was treated unfairly
after he lied in his deposition. I believe that Clinton did break the law
when he lied while under oath during the course of the Paula Jones law suit.
Now, was the lawsuit on the up and up. Hell no. It was part of a right wing
political vendetta designed to ruin Clinton. Unfortunately, he fell into
their trap and broke the law, which he paid a heavy price for. All he had to
do was tell the truth and admit what he did and he would have gotten off
completely free except for paying a price to his wife. As far as crimes go
Clinton's was truly small potatos and nothing to do with government power or
abuse.

All of which hasn't the first thing to do with the three stooges, Libby,
Cheney, and Bush. They all conspired to commit numerous felonies. Libby
broke more laws while on the stand and under oath. He broke the law, got
caught, was convicted, and if not for Bush's pardon would have done jail
time for his crime. Which only shows that our legal system is **** and that
if any justice occurs it is only a matter of pure chance.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote:

It may surprise some to know that I don't think Clinton was treated unfairly
after he lied in his deposition. I believe that Clinton did break the law
when he lied while under oath during the course of the Paula Jones law suit.
Now, was the lawsuit on the up and up. Hell no. It was part of a right wing
political vendetta designed to ruin Clinton. Unfortunately, he fell into
their trap and broke the law, which he paid a heavy price for. All he had to
do was tell the truth and admit what he did and he would have gotten off
completely free except for paying a price to his wife. As far as crimes go
Clinton's was truly small potatos and nothing to do with government power or
abuse.

I hope you see the similarities. Clinton and Liddy both got caught in a
perjury trap.

Wes

--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Hawke" wrote:

It may surprise some to know that I don't think Clinton was treated
unfairly
after he lied in his deposition. I believe that Clinton did break the law
when he lied while under oath during the course of the Paula Jones law
suit.
Now, was the lawsuit on the up and up. Hell no. It was part of a right
wing
political vendetta designed to ruin Clinton. Unfortunately, he fell into
their trap and broke the law, which he paid a heavy price for. All he had
to
do was tell the truth and admit what he did and he would have gotten off
completely free except for paying a price to his wife. As far as crimes
go
Clinton's was truly small potatos and nothing to do with government power
or
abuse.

I hope you see the similarities. Clinton and Liddy both got caught in a
perjury trap.

Wes


I don't know what a perjury trap is. Maybe you can explain it to me. Is it
like a bank robbery trap? When one gets on the witness stand and takes an
oath to tell the truth and doesn't it may well be perjury, but maybe not,
because for it to be perjury it has to be a lie that is told knowingly and
it has to be material to the matter being adjudicated. Clinton didn't tell
the truth but it was not perjury. Libby was convicted of perjury, big
difference. It's like being charged with it compared to being convicted of
it. If Clinton had committed crimes as serious as Libby did I'd gladly admit
it. You can't say the same about Libby. The problem is you are unable to see
the difference in the seriousness of what Clinton did compared to Libby's
crimes. I understand why though.

Hawke

On Mar 23, 12:09*am, "Hawke" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...





"Hawke" wrote:

It may surprise some to know that I don't think Clinton was treated
unfairly
after he lied in his deposition. I believe that Clinton did break the law
when he lied while under oath during the course of the Paula Jones law
suit.
Now, was the lawsuit on the up and up. Hell no. It was part of a right
wing
political vendetta designed to ruin Clinton. Unfortunately, he fell into
their trap and broke the law, which he paid a heavy price for. All he had
to
do was tell the truth and admit what he did and he would have gotten off
completely free except for paying a price to his wife. As far as crimes
go
Clinton's was truly small potatos and nothing to do with government power
or
abuse.

I hope you see the similarities. *Clinton and Liddy both got caught in a
perjury trap.

Wes

I don't know what a perjury trap is. Maybe you can explain it to me. Is it
like a bank robbery trap? When one gets on the witness stand and takes an
oath to tell the truth and doesn't it may well be perjury, but maybe not,
because for it to be perjury it has to be a lie that is told knowingly and
it has to be material to the matter being adjudicated. Clinton didn't tell
the truth but it was not perjury. Libby was convicted of perjury, big
difference. It's like being charged with it compared to being convicted of
it. If Clinton had committed crimes as serious as Libby did I'd gladly admit
it. You can't say the same about Libby. The problem is you are unable to see
the difference in the seriousness of what Clinton did compared to Libby's
crimes. I understand why though.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

how is this related to machining

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 07:46:49 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Don wrote:

how is this related to machining


His skull is six inches of cast iron, with severe cracks from a bad
pour.

Is this guy any relation to you, Michael?

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-bumbot2...6.story?page=1

Ah, wrong spelling, oh, well.

;-)

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 07:46:49 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Don wrote:

how is this related to machining


His skull is six inches of cast iron, with severe cracks from a bad
pour.

Is this guy any relation to you, Michael?

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-bumbot2...6.story?page=1


He has a decent start, but where is the 24" saw blade and flame
thrower?

Maybe this newsgroup needs to build a few of those, to send to
spammers homes to trash their computers?


Ah, wrong spelling, oh, well.


There are at least four different spellings of Terrell.


--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists

Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.

http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Don wrote:

how is this related to machining


His skull is six inches of cast iron, with severe cracks from a bad
pour.


By now you have proven with a high degree of confidence that whatever you
say the opposite is what is to be believed. With a flabby mind and body you
are not a source anyone with even half a brain would listen to. Crawl back
under your rock.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Don wrote:

how is this related to machining


His skull is six inches of cast iron, with severe cracks from a bad
pour.

By now you have proven with a high degree of confidence that whatever you
say the opposite is what is to be believed. With a flabby mind and body you
are not a source anyone with even half a brain would listen to. Crawl back
under your rock.


Yawn. Give it a rest, loser.


--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists

Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.

http://improve-usenet.org/index.html