Registering for Confiscation

[ss12]

Clayton I got you something for Christmas.

http://www.chiabarackobama.com/

[Clayton_Wetter]

Pull!!!!!..

[t.nie]

Ask Juanita Broaddrick if the clinton's are rapists or not.

Who ya' gonna' believe, a known and proven liar or Ms. Broaddrick.

Lucianne Goldberg once said on a national cable network unequivocally that Clinton raped Ms. Broaddrick and then looked into the camera and said "Mr. Clinton, if this isn't true then by all means SUE ME".

Bill Clinton is quite possibly the foremost piece human garbage ever to be elected President of the United States.

Hard to accept, I know, but true nonetheless.

So now the accusation is all it takes to convict? Interesting how you will stand on the constitution when you believe it is protecting your rights, but throw it out as soon as it doesn't fit your point of view.

Innocent until proven guilty I believe is the very foundational principle of our judicial system. It's not up to the accused to sue the accuser to be proven not guilty of the accusations. It's up to the prosecutor to bring a case and prove it, beyond reasonable doubt.

I do believe that Willie is a low life who did despicable rotten dishonorable deeds behind his wife and other people's backs when he thought they weren't looking. But if there were any truth to any of this stuff, after spending years of time and millions of dollars investigating, don't you think Starr could have come up with more than "he lied about receiving oral sex from Lewinsky?"

Sorry, but there were so many people wanting to hang Willie for anything substantial I think if there were something they could have hung him for, they would have. In the end, they came up empty handed and wasted a lot of time and money in the process of finding nothing of any substance.

[buster83]

lot of the older guns went by alphabet but are still recorded when sold, then there are lot of that were hawked off for cash that have changed hands but still legal,there are a few plain guns nothing, according to fbi these illegal.but the crap that happened in california no gun paperwork would have stopped that, they had a plan and enuff ied`s to get where they wanted but chose suicide. but our first presidents would have never allowed these people in this country,know this is a breeding bed for them.

[CIRF]

So now the accusation is all it takes to convict? Interesting how you will stand on the constitution when you believe it is protecting your rights, but throw it out as soon as it doesn't fit your point of view.

Innocent until proven guilty I believe is the very foundational principle of our judicial system. It's not up to the accused to sue the accuser to be proven not guilty of the accusations. It's up to the prosecutor to bring a case and prove it, beyond reasonable doubt.

I do believe that Willie is a low life who did despicable rotten dishonorable deeds behind his wife and other people's backs when he thought they weren't looking. But if there were any truth to any of this stuff, after spending years of time and millions of dollars investigating, don't you think Starr could have come up with more than "he lied about receiving oral sex from Lewinsky?"

Sorry, but there were so many people wanting to hang Willie for anything substantial I think if there were something they could have hung him for, they would have. In the end, they came up empty handed and wasted a lot of time and money in the process of finding nothing of any substance.

You liable someone when you state publicly a provable falsehood. If the Broaddrick rape didn't happen and Goldberg said (which she did!) publicly unequivocally that it did that is clear liable and the clinton's, with their powerful legal counsel, could have taken Ms. Goldberg right down that primrose path!

If the rapist in cheif and his enabling wife could have sued Goldberg for liable and won without Ms. Broaddrick taking the stand under oath and all the details coming out they undoubtedly would have. Crimminal proceedings would have had nothing to do with the liable suit. The statute of limitations had already run out on the Broaddrick rape so no criminal proceedings could have been possible at the time Ms. Goldberg publicly stated that the Clinton's were rapists.

Lucianne Goldberg was, and still is, roundly hated by clinton the rapist and his enabling wife and all of their lap dog water carriers. This hatred stems from her involvement in proving the rapist was getting hummers in the Oval Office from a young intern and jizzin' all over the young intern's dress. If there was a legal avenue to have shut Ms. Goldberg up they would most assuredly have done it but sworn testimony in open court would have been way too damming to the Clinton's. How many women of that generation were raped and it never got reported or prosecuted? A lot.

Again, I ask. Who has the most credibility? Who are we to believe? A proven disbarred serial liar and his enabling wife (wonder when the last time the rapist gave the enabler the high hard one? LOLOL!!) or Ms. Broaddrick? I reckon it depends a lot on how naive one may be and/or how much one wants to look the other way to justify themselves feeling good about the rapist and his enabling wife.

I apologize to the OP for hijacking the thread.

[TS FAN]

Hilary rotton Clinton said all women that accuse men of rape should be believed. What a statement from a women that tried to destroy the THREE women that accused Billy boy of raping them. However the foolish lefty sheep that feel she cannot do any wrong, cheer her, and cannot wait to vote for her.

[CIRF]

Hilary rotton Clinton said all women that accuse men of rape should be believed. What a statement from a women that tried to destroy the THREE women that accused Billy boy of raping them. However the foolish lefty sheep that feel she cannot do any wrong, cheer her, and cannot wait to vote for her.

Oh so right!

What makes me chuckle is the National Organization of Women. NOW was, and still are, solidly behind Clinton and never once denounced him or his enabling wife. No credibility there, that's for sure!

As I once heard someone on TV say, if you're a politician and do bad things to women that NOW would denounce make sure you're pro-choice on all stages of abortion and hold a hard left stance on all other issues.

NOW's deafening silence and continued endorsement of the clinton's is one of the most hypocritical and blatant disregards of conservative women and one of the most blatant double standards anyone has ever seen!

[t.nie]

You liable someone when you state publicly a provable falsehood. If the Broaddrick rape didn't happen and Goldberg said (which she did!) publicly unequivocally that it did that is clear liable and the clinton's, with their powerful legal counsel, could have taken Ms. Goldberg right down that primrose path!

If the rapist in cheif and his enabling wife could have sued Goldberg for liable and won without Ms. Broaddrick taking the stand under oath and all the details coming out they undoubtedly would have. Crimminal proceedings would have had nothing to do with the liable suit. The statute of limitations had already run out on the Broaddrick rape so no criminal proceedings could have been possible at the time Ms. Goldberg publicly stated that the Clinton's were rapists.

Lucianne Goldberg was, and still is, roundly hated by clinton the rapist and his enabling wife and all of their lap dog water carriers. This hatred stems from her involvement in proving the rapist was getting hummers in the Oval Office from a young intern and jizzin' all over the young intern's dress. If there was a legal avenue to have shut Ms. Goldberg up they would most assuredly have done it but sworn testimony in open court would have been way too damming to the Clinton's. How many women of that generation were raped and it never got reported or prosecuted? A lot.

Again, I ask. Who has the most credibility? Who are we to believe? A proven disbarred serial liar and his enabling wife (wonder when the last time the rapist gave the enabler the high hard one? LOLOL!!) or Ms. Broaddrick? I reckon it depends a lot on how naive one may be and/or how much one wants to look the other way to justify themselves feeling good about the rapist and his enabling wife.

I apologize to the OP for hijacking the thread.

Nice ramble. Check your definitions. You slander someone when you make a public statement that is false about them. Libel is when you put your accusation in print.

In either case, simply stating your opinion is not sufficient to rise to the level of libel or slander. She stated her opinion "clinton raped this girl" but that's all it amounts to. Her opinion.

She also did nothing that could be measurable in terms of damage to Clinton by voicing this opinion. To sue someone, they have to not only knowingly claim something false about you, but that claim has to have some measurable damage to you. As she was effectively nothing more than a person repeating hearsay and gossip and giving her opinion, none of what she said did any damage to Clinton at all.

Unfortunately your presentation stumbles around mired in opinions, repeated gossip and hearsay and you fall flat when using terms you obviously have no comprehension of what they mean.

So basically, you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe, but just believing something does not prove anything to anyone else. It just means you fervently believe whatever it is your saying.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Clinton didn't sue her for anything. The fact is, there was nothing in what she said that rose to the standards required to sue someone over it.

If you want to debate credibility, then I would come down on the side of thinking that if the person making the accusation or the accusation itself had any credibility whatsoever, it would have ended up in charges against Clinton. As that didn't happen, I will file this under more smearing of Clinton with no basis in facts.

Sorry, but that's the bottom line. He wasn't charged, people run their mouths all the time, it amounts to nothing unless you just want to believe it because it fits your view of Clinton. Whatever. I tend to stick to facts, not rumors and gossip.

[TS FAN]

Tnie you are certainly a good Democrat. You have their talking points down.

[TS FAN]

Oh so right!

What makes me chuckle is the National Organization of Women. NOW was, and still are, solidly behind Clinton and never once denounced him or his enabling wife. No credibility there, that's for sure!

As I once heard someone on TV say, if you're a politician and do bad things to women that NOW would denounce make sure you're pro-choice on all stages of abortion and hold a hard left stance on all other issues.

NOW's deafening silence and continued endorsement of the clinton's is one of the most hypocritical and blatant disregards of conservative women and one of the most blatant double standards anyone has ever seen!

NOW is a farce. It should be called what it is. Organization for Female Democrats. Honesty is never in the Democratic play book.

[CIRF]

Nice ramble. Check your definitions. You slander someone when you make a public statement that is false about them. Libel is when you put your accusation in print.

In either case, simply stating your opinion is not sufficient to rise to the level of libel or slander. She stated her opinion "clinton raped this girl" but that's all it amounts to. Her opinion.

She also did nothing that could be measurable in terms of damage to Clinton by voicing this opinion. To sue someone, they have to not only knowingly claim something false about you, but that claim has to have some measurable damage to you. As she was effectively nothing more than a person repeating hearsay and gossip and giving her opinion, none of what she said did any damage to Clinton at all.

Unfortunately your presentation stumbles around mired in opinions, repeated gossip and hearsay and you fall flat when using terms you obviously have no comprehension of what they mean.

So basically, you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe, but just believing something does not prove anything to anyone else. It just means you fervently believe whatever it is your saying.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Clinton didn't sue her for anything. The fact is, there was nothing in what she said that rose to the standards required to sue someone over it.

If you want to debate credibility, then I would come down on the side of thinking that if the person making the accusation or the accusation itself had any credibility whatsoever, it would have ended up in charges against Clinton. As that didn't happen, I will file this under more smearing of Clinton with no basis in facts.

Sorry, but that's the bottom line. He wasn't charged, people run their mouths all the time, it amounts to nothing unless you just want to believe it because it fits your view of Clinton. Whatever. I tend to stick to facts, not rumors and gossip.

You have shown absolutely no reason to put the slightest credence in your legal determinations. LOL!! They are worth exactly what anyone here that reads them paid you for them, same as everyone else's.

I will say it again, Lucianne Goldberg gleefully dared them to sue her, and if Clinton and his enabling wife could have without having very damaging sworn testimony being given in open court (which would amount to legacy and political suicide) they would have. Common sense, which is in short supply to those who would deny and/or condone the actions of a rapist, would dictate that if a person unequivocally and publicly defames another with no basis of truth successful litigation would likely be possible.

The question, "who are you going to believe?" is about all that needs to be said. The honest rationale of anyone who would believe, let alone condone, most anything clinton and his enabling wife would say and/or do is in dire need of evaluation.

Those who condone, defend and hold in high esteem those who commit rape then a reasonable conclusion is that a reasonable conversation is probably impossible.

Clinton is a rapist and you can deny it ad nauseam and it will still be true.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Politics protected Clinton. BTW, what point are you trying to make? Clinton also lied to the FEDS, same thing that got Martha Stewart put in prison. As a declaring Christian, you should have no reason, no time, no way to be defending someone who conduct's his life the way Clinton has. His wife is just as bad for trying to cover it up. BTW, what does Nugent have to do with Clinton?

Nugent has a public voice and puts down the Progressives and Communistic Democrats assault on America. I consider his change to patriotism redeeming while Mr. nie get's to use Nugent as a target like all liberals do. It's what they do. They try to destroy all who are not like minded to their Fascist thinking.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Nice ramble. Check your definitions. You slander someone when you make a public statement that is false about them. Libel is when you put your accusation in print.

In either case, simply stating your opinion is not sufficient to rise to the level of libel or slander. She stated her opinion "clinton raped this girl" but that's all it amounts to. Her opinion.

She also did nothing that could be measurable in terms of damage to Clinton by voicing this opinion. To sue someone, they have to not only knowingly claim something false about you, but that claim has to have some measurable damage to you. As she was effectively nothing more than a person repeating hearsay and gossip and giving her opinion, none of what she said did any damage to Clinton at all.

Unfortunately your presentation stumbles around mired in opinions, repeated gossip and hearsay and you fall flat when using terms you obviously have no comprehension of what they mean.

So basically, you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe, but just believing something does not prove anything to anyone else. It just means you fervently believe whatever it is your saying.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Clinton didn't sue her for anything. The fact is, there was nothing in what she said that rose to the standards required to sue someone over it.

If you want to debate credibility, then I would come down on the side of thinking that if the person making the accusation or the accusation itself had any credibility whatsoever, it would have ended up in charges against Clinton. As that didn't happen, I will file this under more smearing of Clinton with no basis in facts.

Sorry, but that's the bottom line. He wasn't charged, people run their mouths all the time, it amounts to nothing unless you just want to believe it because it fits your view of Clinton. Whatever. I tend to stick to facts, not rumors and gossip.

Funny thing is that if it were Chaney in this situation you would be on it like stink on %$#@!!!

[Clayton_Wetter]

Tnie you are certainly a good Democrat. You have their talking points down.

Yep a great Democrat in fact. Nothing and I mean nothing, whether it be the truth or heavy evidence of wrong doing against any Democrat matters.

I ask how a real Christian could live like that!!! Condoning a corrupt and dishonest political party and all of the lies and corruption that they perpetrate!!!

While at the same time joining in on their actions, to the word.

[t.nie]

You have shown absolutely no reason to put the slightest credence in your legal determinations. LOL!! They are worth exactly what anyone here that reads them paid you for them, same as everyone else's.

I will say it again, Lucianne Goldberg gleefully dared them to sue her, and if Clinton and his enabling wife could have without having very damaging sworn testimony being given in open court (which would amount to legacy and political suicide) they would have. Common sense, which is in short supply to those who would deny and/or condone the actions of a rapist, would dictate that if a person unequivocally and publicly defames another with no basis of truth successful litigation would likely be possible.

The question, "who are you going to believe?" is about all that needs to be said. The honest rationale of anyone who would believe, let alone condone, most anything clinton and his enabling wife would say and/or do is in dire need of evaluation.

Those who condone, defend and hold in high esteem those who commit rape then a reasonable conclusion is that a reasonable conversation is probably impossible.

Clinton is a rapist and you can deny it ad nauseam and it will still be true.

I am not debating whether or not he is a rapist. What I am saying is until someone is tried and convicted, some lady on a TV show challenging him to sue him doesn't equate an actual criminal trial and conviction.

I don't condone all the things he did. Far from it. But taking his womanizing and philandering and then going to extremes with this rape stuff is really pushing the envelope. It is based on your own hate and malice, not on any facts.

So with that, you believe what you want. I believe we will just disagree.