British pilot who 'buzzed' Bush ranch to be deported

On 14 May, 21:45, Anonymouse wrote:
He lied under oath, which is a crime

Hi,

many people don't understand that Clinton wasn't impeached over a BJ...
he was impeached for Perjury.

Yeah, he should simply have told them it was none of their damned
business and walked out on the proceedings!

that's I believe called "contempt of congress"

Lying and falsifying "evidence" to force us into an immoral and
unjustifiable war is NOT criminal, but lying about a personal matter
like adultery IS? (Clearly there's something VERY wrong with America's
priorities, if so.)

well for starters these united States have not been at war since 1945
with the surrender of Imperial Japan.


what about the 'War On Terror'.....AKA 'Peace Through Violence'

"Tim C." kirjoitti
viestissä:1iwf2h2tkejex$.kln6vifvvgvu$.dlg@40tude. net...
On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:24:37 +0100, Mike...... wrote:

Following up to Anonymouse

well for starters these united States have not been at war since 1945
with the surrender of Imperial Japan.

thats plain silly. Pretending you are not at war doesnt mean you are not
at
war. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and other minor things are wars,
even if the US chooses to pretend otherwise.

Didn't Panama declare war on the US once a few years ago?

No. Americans just attacked the country and brought Noriega to jail in
Florida. Gunboat diplomacy.

Can you not be at was with someone who's declared war on you?

Well, phoney wars describe this situation pretty good. You are barking a bit
and that's it. For instance both the UK and France "declared" war on Germany
in September 1939. They had no true means to manoeuvre though. Similarly the
UK and Canada (possibly Guinea Bissau and Bhutan as well) "declared" war on
Finland in December 1941 when the Finnish military force was liquidating
communists. I assume the Finnish generals just ignored them. Lances were
pointing to East. There was nothing there in West (Germany had neutralized
that neighbourhood by July 1940).

I'm also told that Canadians believe they *won* that war!
--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Hey, as long as everyone is happy. :-)

Mike...... writes:

Pretending you are not at war doesnt mean you are not at
war.

Pretending you are at war doesn't mean that you're at war, either.

Anonymouse wrote:

He lied under oath, which is a crime

Hi,

many people don't understand that Clinton wasn't impeached over a BJ...
he was impeached for Perjury.

Yeah, he should simply have told them it was none of their damned
business and walked out on the proceedings!

that's I believe called "contempt of congress"

How could anyone have had anything BUT contempt for that congress?????


Lying and falsifying "evidence" to force us into an immoral and
unjustifiable war is NOT criminal, but lying about a personal matter
like adultery IS? (Clearly there's something VERY wrong with
America's priorities, if so.)

well for starters these united States have not been at war since 1945
with the surrender of Imperial Japan.

I'm sure the parents and loved ones of all the GI's killed and injured
in action since then will find that an enormous consolation!


Congress has been negligent in it's duty to act as a check to the
president.

You got THAT right! (Maybe we should impeach Congress, too.) ;-)

James Silverton wrote:
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 11:55:26 -0700:


Mike.... wrote:
Following up to Anonymouse
I imagine they were thinking the Brits might invade at some
point. It seems many countries are quite relaxed about
changes to their constitutions to match current
circumstances.
Hi,

the Brits DID invade (war of 1812)

and is it likely now? And if it was (lets substitute China) are
personal weapons now relevant? I think you are proving my
point.

Re the war of 1812, I think Canada's viewpoint is somewhat
different - according to an American History textbook by Canadian
Leonard Cotterill, they seem to think it was WE who invaded THEM!
(Thus many regard it as a U.S. war for the acquisition of Canada.)

I'm also told that Canadians believe they *won* that war!

Didn't they? (Canada is still a sovereign country, which was allegedly
NOT our intent!)

Following up to Mxsmanic

Pretending you are not at war doesnt mean you are not at
war.

Pretending you are at war doesn't mean that you're at war, either.

its the combat casualties that give you a clue.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:00:20 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Mike...... writes:

Pretending you are not at war doesnt mean you are not at
war.

Pretending you are at war doesn't mean that you're at war, either.

true but irrelevant.
--
Tim C.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:48:29 +0100, (David Horne,
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

John Kulp wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:39:45 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:



Gregory Morrow wrote:
[]
I'm grateful to Bush that he didn't disgrace the office of the
Presidency with his personal conduct, as Clinton The Horndawg did...

Define "disgrace". Clinton only had it off with an intern (an all too
willing one, if her reported before the fact "statements of intent" to
friends are to be believed). Bush has committed "high crimes and
misdemeanors", and deserves to be impeached! (If only Pelosi and our
vaunted "Democratic" Congress had not proved to be such wimps.)

How about having the entire Supreme Court, left to right, boycott his
State of the Union address over his lies and disbarring him in front
of it crackpot? That count?

Even in the US, Clinton is still well-liked (despite being unpopular
with a significant minority), even if his recent involvent in his wife's
campaign has caused problems. Outside the US, he seems even more
popular. You simply can't say the same about Bush. Why do you think his
father broke down publicly in Florida recently? It was nothing to do
with Jeb, who was there. Bush Snr. is no fool- and probably already has
a good idea how history will view his son. At worst, Clinton's mistakes
will be seen as mildly amusing (no one really cares _that_ much about
the lying about it) and Bush's will haunt him his entire life. I expect
that Bush will 'retire' from public life once out of office. His
unpopularity at the moment even in the US is very unusual for a sitting
president.

Correct about Bush for sure, but not about Clinton. His race baiting
on behalf of his wife has greatly tarnished his image.