Boehner on 60 minutes

[Roger Perry]

So perjury is okay, depending on what you are lying about?

So if a President lies or claims executive previledge to cover up lies or criminal acts it does't count because he is not under oath??????

[JDogger]

so its not a lie if what he was lying about is not a crime. got it.

Nooo... as usual you missed the point once again.

It's over. It's done. It's history.


"BTW Clinton was President a long time ago...who gives a FRA anymore?"

Get it?

Try to get a grip on the here and now.

JD

[sandyg]

Nooo... as usual you missed the point once again.

It's over. It's done. It's history.


"BTW Clinton was President a long time ago...who gives a FRA anymore?"

Get it?

Try to get a grip on the here and now.

JD

Your comrade in post 25 brought it up...

[dnf777]

So lying about the hefty girl in the blue dress is treason and impeachable, but lying about intelligence that leads to a war costing over a 100,000 deaths and wrecking our economy; and then outing the spy wife of the journalist who exposes your lies, thats okay?

He wasn't under oath, so it was perfectly ok. Besides, I think he had his fingers crossed behind his back. Oh, and he didn't say, "cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye". Double protection.

So relax, its only a war and a couple trillion dollars and few thousand lives. Tsk Tsk Tsk....nowhere NEAR a hummer and denying it!

[ducknwork]

He wasn't under oath, so it was perfectly ok. Besides, I think he had his fingers crossed behind his back. Oh, and he didn't say, "cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye". Double protection.

So relax, its only a war and a couple trillion dollars and few thousand lives. Tsk Tsk Tsk....nowhere NEAR a hummer and denying it!

No, lying like you guys are claiming isn't right, but it's not perjury either. I am not sure what the crime would be called, but I am sure that between all of you, you can come up with something to call it.

However, I have a hard time believing that the democrats chose not to pursue any wrongdoing by Bush simply because they were nice guys and wanted to move on. It would probably be something more like they don't have the proof to make a case...which means it may not be true. I don't believe that if all the Roger claims was 100% true, nothing would have happened to Bush.

[dnf777]

No, lying like you guys are claiming isn't right, but it's not perjury either. I am not sure what the crime would be called, but I am sure that between all of you, you can come up with something to call it.

However, I have a hard time believing that the democrats chose not to pursue any wrongdoing by Bush simply because they were nice guys and wanted to move on. It would probably be something more like they don't have the proof to make a case...which means it may not be true. I don't believe that if all the Roger claims was 100% true, nothing would have happened to Bush.

Well, two possibilities, three is you consider "all of the above".

1) when in control of all agencies involved, its easy to make the scene fit your needs. ie cover your tracks

2) they probably have just enough dirt on Obama and his chicago cronies to lever their mouths shut.

3) All of the above (my choice)

And even if Almighty God Himself came down from Heaven and confirmed that the republicans lied to take us to war, the Beckites, Hannitonians, and Rushites would accuse God of being a democrat and smear his character!

[sandyg]

Well, two possibilities, three is you consider "all of the above".

1) when in control of all agencies involved, its easy to make the scene fit your needs. ie cover your tracks

2) they probably have just enough dirt on Obama and his chicago cronies to lever their mouths shut.

3) All of the above (my choice)

And even if Almighty God Himself came down from Heaven and confirmed that the republicans lied to take us to war, the Beckites, Hannitonians, and Rushites would accuse God of being a democrat and smear his character!

Once again, the genius knows what everyone else would do. It must be fascinating to be inside your head; fantasies, paranoia, delusions of grandeur, etc.

[JDogger]

Your comrade in post 25 brought it up...

To quote rk, "HHHhhEEEEStaaartedIIIiitttTT!!"

You've been around long enough now to realize that threads on PP veer OT almost every time, no matter who is posting. Right?

JD

[Roger Perry]

He wasn't under oath, so it was perfectly ok. Besides, I think he had his fingers crossed behind his back. Oh, and he didn't say, "cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye". Double protection.

So relax, its only a war and a couple trillion dollars and few thousand lives. Tsk Tsk Tsk....nowhere NEAR a hummer and denying it!

Don't forget illegal wire tapping.

[Roger Perry]

No, lying like you guys are claiming isn't right, but it's not perjury either. I am not sure what the crime would be called, but I am sure that between all of you, you can come up with something to call it.

However, I have a hard time believing that the democrats chose not to pursue any wrongdoing by Bush simply because they were nice guys and wanted to move on. It would probably be something more like they don't have the proof to make a case...which means it may not be true. I don't believe that if all the Roger claims was 100% true, nothing would have happened to Bush.

So just because Bush did not go before Congress and testify under oath that he did not comit any crimes or misdemeanors or tell any lies???????????