Al Gore endorses Dean

Discussion in 'Politics' started by MtnBiker, Dec 8, 2003.

  1. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Endorsement from Gore helps Dean with dems who worry he is unelectable. I think your right, Aquarian.
     
  2. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    jimnyc, sorry, but i must have missed your respnse when i replied. I guess I didn't make it clear in the original post, but the reason why I've lost all faith in the democrats is because they didn't even bother to fight off the terrible decision by bringing charges against him. When you get to that high of level in the government there is no real justice, in other words, he won't be tried as a common american like you and I would. Look at what happened to Clinton, the a$$ lied under oath and had no penalty brought against him, whereas we would definitely be charged.
     
  3. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +248
    No penalty for lying under oath? Are you sure about that one? You may want to research his law license a little further.
     
  4. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    But he was never faced with any jail time!!!! Do you honestly believe that losing that license was humiliating enough to call off any further punishment?
     
  5. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +248
    Oh ok, change your stance now! You stated NO PENALTY WAS BROUGHT AGAINST HIM! It was, you were wrong. Why haven't any charges been leveled against Bush?
     
  6. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't think Bill Clinton was considering practicing law, Jim. The loss of his liscence may represent no harm to him so in a narrow technical sense I think PJs' point can be maintained. Does anybody know what the criminal penalty was for lying to a grand jury in a civil action? That's the charge he avoided.
     
  7. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    I guess I should tell you that you should "get over" the taking away of the license and I would win the argument, but I've never been the one to take the easy way out. I can even prove Clinton was above the law with this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=13170

    The law states that he should have lost his license immediately, and should have been faced with jail time with large fines. Did he get charged with lying under oath? It would appear not.

    Getting back to the real argument, I think a huge part of it is corruption. The Senators and Congressmen want to cover their asses, if one can get tried like an average person then that means that they can too, and they don't want that. That is why Bush isn't charged.
     
  8. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +248
    So when a rich person gets a fine levied for breaking the law, does that mean they weren't penalized since it didn't affect them in the slightest bit? He WAS penalized, just not as severe as he deserved.

    Extremely weak argument! All that proves is that HE DID have his license removed, just not immediately. How did that make him above the law? So if someone gets pulled over for a DUI and their license doesn't get revoked for another 2 months, that means they got away with it?

    So all the senators and congressmen (democrats and republicans alike) conveniently decided not to pursue charges? Every last one of them is in on this conspiracy? If not all of them, can you point me to where those did speak out with the "proof" you have provided. Thanks, I'll be waiting!
     
  9. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    I'm getting the feeling I'm talking to a wall. A penalty is defined as bringing a hardship onto a person, having his license taken away is by no means a hardship.

    Extremely weak argument! All that proves is that HE DID have his license removed, just not immediately. How did that make him above the law? So if someone gets pulled over for a DUI and their license doesn't get revoked for another 2 months, that means they got away with it?

    The fact it didn't get taken away immediately is sort of the point. That article is but a trifle of the corruption that takes place every day. You are an idiot if you don't think they are all looking out for one another! How many people got fired after 9/11?None. How many people got fired after Bush said in his speech that there was a nuclear threat in Iraq? None. Today it was discovered that Newsweek talked to the messanger of UBL, showing that the magazine news week has better human intelligence than all of the CIA!!!!!!!!! And again, how many people were fired, 0. Yes, Democrats and Republicans conveniently decide not to pursue charges.

    I hope I didn't keep you waiting too long.;)
     
  10. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +248
    Sorry, wrong again! Penalty is defined as "punishment established by law or authority for a crime". Whether or not the punishment fits the crims is another story, but he WAS penalized.

    I think they were a little lenient with the President of the USA. It was fully investigated and he was ultimately punished. Not only by our court system, but by congress as well.

    That's the last time you'll be calling me an idiot - 'nuff said.

    Who should have been fired, and why?

    That's called an interview, not intelligence. What new evidence did the reporter find out and how has it assisted in national security?

    So first it was the administration behind all of it, now your saying it's the entire government? LOL

    Long enough for such disappointing "proof". What we have here is good 'ol fashioned horseshit without one bit of proof at all. Thanks for trying though, your efforts haven't gone unrecognized.:laugh:
     

Share This Page