Speakeasy forum

General discussion

A refresher course for liberals

by duckman / October 29, 2005 1:38 AM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: A refresher course for liberals
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: A refresher course for liberals
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
he was such an honerable man
by Mark5019 / October 29, 2005 2:37 AM PDT

with men like him how could we go wrong:(

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Thanks for the reminder. It is easy to forget the details.
by Kiddpeat / October 29, 2005 2:52 AM PDT
Collapse -
Once again proof...
by grimgraphix / October 29, 2005 5:30 AM PDT

that anyone who wants to be a politician should probably be the last person we allow to be a politician.

Both sides of the aisle Ya'll.


Collapse -
Old news, dead news.
by Ziks511 / October 30, 2005 4:58 PM PST

The Lewinsky issue had nothing to do with Whitewater. Remember Whitewater? That's what the investigation was supposed to be about. Ken Starr came up with nothing connecting the President to anything and it all should have ended there but for the SP's clear partisan desperation to find something, anything. All that he could find rested on a civil matter between a husband and wife and a politically star-struck girl who couldn't keep her mouth closed.

Why are you posting something this old, and which no liberal contests except for the fact that the issue under investigation should never have been the business of any Special Prosecuter? Trying to lead us away from your President's inability to lead, to speak, to manage, to employ people of character and probity? Looks like it if you're desperate enough to post 3 year old news stories from NewsMax ("News with a Conservative Slant") about 8 year old transgressions already settled. He was censured, get over it.


Collapse -
Well as long as we're posting old news...
by Josh K / October 30, 2005 11:16 PM PST
In reply to: Old news, dead news.
Collapse -
Funny thing is
by grimgraphix / October 31, 2005 1:03 AM PST

that scandals like this and watergate launched the TV careers of Ollie North and G. Gordon Liddy.

Breaking the law does pay off sometimes !


Collapse -
Al Franken and Ollie North were both....
by Josh K / October 31, 2005 1:16 AM PST
In reply to: Funny thing is

...invited to appear on "Celebrity Jeopardy" one week, but not on the same day. Al Franken said he was disappointed. He was hoping to get in a few shots like, "May I have 'Lying to Congress' for $100, Alex? Oh wait, that's not a category, sorry."

I guess when you lie under oath for the Right you're a hero.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) When your right, your right ! ;)
by grimgraphix / October 31, 2005 1:21 AM PST
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Wasn't North's conviction overturned?
by Evie / October 31, 2005 5:32 AM PST
Collapse -
Yes, but not because....
by Josh K / October 31, 2005 5:56 AM PST

...he didn't lie to Congress. It was overturned because it was ruled that his Congressional testimony prejudiced his ability to get a fair trial, because that testimony was televised. So he beat the rap on a technicality, not on the merits of the case against him. Not exactly a redemption, is it. And yet he remains a hero to the Right. Why?


However, on July 20, 1990, a three-judge appeals panel overturned North's conviction in advance of further proceedings on the grounds that his public testimony may have prejudiced his right to a fair trial. [1] The Supreme Court declined to review the case, and Judge Gesell dismissed the charges on September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of the independent counsel.

Essentially, North's convictions were overturned because he had been granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony, and this testimony was deemed to have influenced witnesses at his trial.

Collapse -
by Evie / October 31, 2005 6:25 AM PST

... so he couldn't have gotten a fair trial on any perjury charge, thus any conviction was thus tainted. Not sticking up for North per se, but if you were innocent and convicted of a crime by a prejudiced jury and the verdict was thrown out for that reason, I would think you would feel otherwise about that "technicality".

Collapse -
Sure I would....
by Josh K / October 31, 2005 11:03 PM PST
In reply to: Ummm....

....though I'd feel a lot better (and people would look at me a lot differently) if I'd been found Not Guilty by an honest jury.

And if I was guilty and had my conviction overturned on those grounds, I'd be laughing all the way home as I'm sure old Ollie was.

Collapse -
Is it an "honest jury" if they have been prejudiced...
by EdH / October 31, 2005 11:22 PM PST
In reply to: Sure I would....

I think not.

Collapse -
Maybe you misunderstood me
by Josh K / October 31, 2005 11:26 PM PST

I meant that if I was innocent, I'd feel a lot better being acquitted by an honest jury than being convicted by a prejudiced one and then having the conviction overturned. Either way I'm a free man but one would make me feel vindicated and one wouldn't.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) No, I understood it perfectly
by EdH / October 31, 2005 11:32 PM PST
Collapse -
Duck and cover Josh
by grimgraphix / November 1, 2005 12:00 AM PST

another example of semantical games being played rather than dealing with the original issue. North got off on a technicality. For some folk the technicality is a full exoneration of the man. To other people it remains what it truly is... just a technicality.


BTW does Reagans diagnosis of Alzheimer's prove he was telling the truth when he said that he didn't recall the events in quesstion in re: to Iran/Contra ?

Collapse -
Reagan's testimony
by Josh K / November 1, 2005 12:12 AM PST

My guess is that he was in the early stages at the time he testified, and was probably telling the truth at least part of the time. He was also unable to recall basic (non-incriminating) facts like the names of some of his top aides, which bolsters that suspicion.

Collapse -
My point was you assume Ollie guilty ...
by Evie / November 1, 2005 9:47 AM PST
In reply to: Sure I would....

... based on your own prejudices as well -- I'm sure his conviction no matter how flawed the trial adds to that. I'm sure he would have preferred to be found not guilty by an honest jury as well. Only an idiot would press for a new trial if a conviction is overturned on appeal and the prosecution doesn't seek one!

Collapse -
Refersal of North's conviction
by grandpaw7 / November 1, 2005 9:38 AM PST
In reply to: Funny thing is

Since the Oliver North case somehow found its way into this discussion, it may be worthwhile to note that the reason his conviction was reversed was because what he said to Congress could not be used against him later since he demanded that his testimony be insulated from that by a grant of immunity. So he was presumably willing to tell the truth only if that truth could not be used against him. If that testimony was truthful, and someone was prejudiced by it, they would have been prejudiced by the truth. And North was not willing for that to happen.

Collapse -
Politics 101
by grandpaw7 / October 31, 2005 8:54 AM PST

If your man is under attack, it sometimes helps to divert some of the attention on the attack to try to resurrect past attacks on an enemy of your man. This is especially true if you lack a more rational way of defending your man.

Collapse -
March 2002? Talk about "Old News!!!"
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / October 31, 2005 12:13 PM PST

This is supposed to make us forget how Bush promised in his election campaign that he'd do "not what's legal, but what's right." Now it turns out his people sometimes do neither.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Did you look at the items to the left of the article?
by Diana Forum moderator / October 31, 2005 10:50 PM PST
Osama?s ?Great Ramadan Offensive? from October 4 ? November 2, With Attacks on the U. S., Netherlands, Italy, Australia, and Russia, Will be More Spectacular than September 11 !!

Joseph Farah on WorldNetDaily.com reports that terrorism expert Yossef Bodansky, who was director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare for over ten years, discovered a letter from Abu Musab Zarqawi to Osama bin Laden describing Ramadan attacks on the U. S., Europe and Russia as a ?fateful confrontation? with the U. S. and Israel. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama?s second-in-command, has warned of ?horrific attacks? against U. S. cities. He has also said that Osama has acquired thirty suitcase nuclear bombs from the former Soviet Union.

Dr. Paul Williams, author of Osama?s Revenge: the Next 9/11 and The Al Qaeda Connection, says that Osama has already smuggled seven to ten suitcase nuclear bombs into the U. S. through the Mexican border. In addition, 8,000 illegals from terror-suspect countries such as Yemen, Sudan, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have come across the Mexican border into the U. S. in the past six months. And, most alarming of all, Adnan el-Shukrijumah and Amer el-Maati, Osama?s ringleaders of his ?American Hiroshima? Project, where he plans to blow up seven to ten American cities with nukes, have now entered the U. S. through Mexico! The American Hiroshima starts now!

Also look at his solution

After seven to ten of our cities, or more, are destroyed by nuclear blasts from terrorists in the next few days (if frightened by publicity, the terrorists may hold off until the last two weeks of November, the Mahdi?s birthday), months, or years, what can we do?

We can bomb and destroy the headquarters of the ruling regimes such as Iran and Syria that sponsor terror.

We can go into Pakistan and get Osama bin Laden.

We can build a 50-foot wall, if need be, across the Mexican border to prevent terrorist illegals from coming in.

We can provide funding to make available the radiation sickness medicine, Neumune, that cuts the death rate of people exposed to radiation from 50% to 10%.

We can send in 150,000 more troops into Iraq and win the war in Iraq.

We can cut off all funding to the Palestinian Authority until they stop all terror attacks on Israel.

And we can deport every Wahhabi cleric that spouts violence against the U. S.

Only then can we possibly live in safety.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?