It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Donald Trump has just directly accused Obama of wiretapping Trump residence.

page: 316
158
<< 313  314  315    317  318  319 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: UKTruth


Well, you are lol.


It's not my default based upon your perception that I feel stupid, I don't because I'm right.


It's my default for calling a spade a spade.....you're a foreigner. US politics aren't your backyard. Your opinion on this particular conversation has no meaning or even any significant level of importance to the issue at hand. You want to be relevant? Become a citizen of the US...



Well, it does appear that a foreigner had to advise you of the ACTUAL criteria for declaring a President unfit and removing him form office. Perhaps you should brush up on your civics so as not to let foreigners educate you on your own country. Might be an idea...


Here we go, round and round again....simply because you refuse to answer a simple question.

I've known (likely for longer than you've been alive) what the law is regarding how a President can be impeached...that was not the question that I asked you which you continually refuse to answer.

The question I asked you was (since you're the consummate professional attempting to school another poster, who IS an actual citizen) what is your criteria for deeming a President unfit for office, not for the law regarding how a President can be impeached.


..and I told you... I would not like to add any criteria to the law. I'd rather not add more silly opinions to your silly opinions.


Bill Clinton lied publicly one time about getting sexual services ... and he got impeached for it.

How many times has Trump lied publicly about far, far more important matters???


Bill lied under oath. Come on now... you know that.


Was he impeached for lying?

That's the point.


No he wasn't. He as impeached for lying under oath.
What was that about knowing the rules?


Hey, I'm surprised that with your penchant for nitpicking you missed the fact that lying is the key issue in that situation.

Haven't had time to Google the 25th Amendment yet?

Sad.


I will persist in attempting to teach you your own history because I am nice like that.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for lying.


You don't even seem to understand your "own" history; you certainly don't understand American history ... if the kind of simplistic semantic games you're trying to play here today are any indication of your ability.

You can't even understand that LYING is the focal point of what Clinton was impeached for.

Why don't you try your phrase without "lying" in it and see how much sense it makes.

That's about the amount of sense you're making with this absurd, irrelevant, specious line of argument.




posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Well, since the 25th Amendment has never been invoked, according to you (incorrectly), it's irrelevant of the list of facts about what makes Donald Trump unfit or not, right?

You're the one that likes logic puzzles.

The fact is the 25th Amendments provisions have been invoked, and further, the point of the exercise as I tried to give you time to catch up on ... is that the matter of removing the President there under is a SUBJECTIVE decision on the part of either the VP and the Cabinet OR the Congress.

Do you really think when the lies, incompetence, and so forth that Trump has been putting on international display continue that there won't be some point at which even the Pence and/or the Congress says ENOUGH!

That's the only aspect here that involves an opinion.

As to the very obvious list of deficits that President Trump has shown, it is only "silly" in your opinion ... the blatant facts say otherwise.



Wrong, I did not say it had never been invoked


To emphasise how ridiculous your argument is, one could rather stupidly claim that the President is not fit for office because his suits don't fit properly and it requires much better tailoring to be President. They could just leave that hanging there as sensible, and not utterly ridiculous, because the 25th Amendment offers the Vice President with "a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" an avenue to impeach.

A specific claim was made with a list of silly reasons to declare the President unfit for office.
I am still waiting for those reasons to be backed up.

Speculation about what Pence and co might be thinking is hardly useful. How about some facts and proof that the silly list is indeed grounds for declaring the President unfit. After all it's not my silly list, so please provide something more substantive than Pence might think the same at some point in the future.

edit on 18/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: UKTruth


Well, you are lol.


It's not my default based upon your perception that I feel stupid, I don't because I'm right.


It's my default for calling a spade a spade.....you're a foreigner. US politics aren't your backyard. Your opinion on this particular conversation has no meaning or even any significant level of importance to the issue at hand. You want to be relevant? Become a citizen of the US...



Well, it does appear that a foreigner had to advise you of the ACTUAL criteria for declaring a President unfit and removing him form office. Perhaps you should brush up on your civics so as not to let foreigners educate you on your own country. Might be an idea...


Here we go, round and round again....simply because you refuse to answer a simple question.

I've known (likely for longer than you've been alive) what the law is regarding how a President can be impeached...that was not the question that I asked you which you continually refuse to answer.

The question I asked you was (since you're the consummate professional attempting to school another poster, who IS an actual citizen) what is your criteria for deeming a President unfit for office, not for the law regarding how a President can be impeached.


..and I told you... I would not like to add any criteria to the law. I'd rather not add more silly opinions to your silly opinions.


Bill Clinton lied publicly one time about getting sexual services ... and he got impeached for it.

How many times has Trump lied publicly about far, far more important matters???


Bill lied under oath. Come on now... you know that.


Was he impeached for lying?

That's the point.


No he wasn't. He as impeached for lying under oath.
What was that about knowing the rules?


Hey, I'm surprised that with your penchant for nitpicking you missed the fact that lying is the key issue in that situation.

Haven't had time to Google the 25th Amendment yet?

Sad.


I will persist in attempting to teach you your own history because I am nice like that.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for lying.


I don't remember Bill Clinton taking the witness stand. Must have been behind closed doors? What did Slick Willy lie about, that was Impeachable? I think even back then the media downplayed it...because they lie a lot too.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: UKTruth


Well, you are lol.


It's not my default based upon your perception that I feel stupid, I don't because I'm right.


It's my default for calling a spade a spade.....you're a foreigner. US politics aren't your backyard. Your opinion on this particular conversation has no meaning or even any significant level of importance to the issue at hand. You want to be relevant? Become a citizen of the US...



Well, it does appear that a foreigner had to advise you of the ACTUAL criteria for declaring a President unfit and removing him form office. Perhaps you should brush up on your civics so as not to let foreigners educate you on your own country. Might be an idea...


Here we go, round and round again....simply because you refuse to answer a simple question.

I've known (likely for longer than you've been alive) what the law is regarding how a President can be impeached...that was not the question that I asked you which you continually refuse to answer.

The question I asked you was (since you're the consummate professional attempting to school another poster, who IS an actual citizen) what is your criteria for deeming a President unfit for office, not for the law regarding how a President can be impeached.


..and I told you... I would not like to add any criteria to the law. I'd rather not add more silly opinions to your silly opinions.


Bill Clinton lied publicly one time about getting sexual services ... and he got impeached for it.

How many times has Trump lied publicly about far, far more important matters???


Bill lied under oath. Come on now... you know that.


Was he impeached for lying?

That's the point.


No he wasn't. He as impeached for lying under oath.
What was that about knowing the rules?


Hey, I'm surprised that with your penchant for nitpicking you missed the fact that lying is the key issue in that situation.

Haven't had time to Google the 25th Amendment yet?

Sad.


I will persist in attempting to teach you your own history because I am nice like that.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for lying.


You don't even seem to understand your "own" history; you certainly don't understand American history ... if the kind of simplistic semantic games you're trying to play here today are any indication of your ability.

You can't even understand that LYING is the focal point of what Clinton was impeached for.

Why don't you try your phrase without "lying" in it and see how much sense it makes.

That's about the amount of sense you're making with this absurd, irrelevant, specious line of argument.


No, lying was not the focal point. No President has ever been impeached for lying, only lying under oath. There is a profound difference.

As for not using lying in the reason - ok. He was impeached for perjury.

I am astounded that you don't understand the difference between a lie and a lying under oath.
edit on 18/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: UKTruth


Well, you are lol.


It's not my default based upon your perception that I feel stupid, I don't because I'm right.


It's my default for calling a spade a spade.....you're a foreigner. US politics aren't your backyard. Your opinion on this particular conversation has no meaning or even any significant level of importance to the issue at hand. You want to be relevant? Become a citizen of the US...



Well, it does appear that a foreigner had to advise you of the ACTUAL criteria for declaring a President unfit and removing him form office. Perhaps you should brush up on your civics so as not to let foreigners educate you on your own country. Might be an idea...


Here we go, round and round again....simply because you refuse to answer a simple question.

I've known (likely for longer than you've been alive) what the law is regarding how a President can be impeached...that was not the question that I asked you which you continually refuse to answer.

The question I asked you was (since you're the consummate professional attempting to school another poster, who IS an actual citizen) what is your criteria for deeming a President unfit for office, not for the law regarding how a President can be impeached.


..and I told you... I would not like to add any criteria to the law. I'd rather not add more silly opinions to your silly opinions.


Bill Clinton lied publicly one time about getting sexual services ... and he got impeached for it.

How many times has Trump lied publicly about far, far more important matters???


Bill lied under oath. Come on now... you know that.


Was he impeached for lying?

That's the point.


No he wasn't. He as impeached for lying under oath.
What was that about knowing the rules?


Hey, I'm surprised that with your penchant for nitpicking you missed the fact that lying is the key issue in that situation.

Haven't had time to Google the 25th Amendment yet?

Sad.


I will persist in attempting to teach you your own history because I am nice like that.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for lying.


I don't remember Bill Clinton taking the witness stand. Must have been behind closed doors? What did Slick Willy lie about, that was Impeachable? I think even back then the media downplayed it...because they lie a lot too.


He was impeached for lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: UKTruth


Well, you are lol.


It's not my default based upon your perception that I feel stupid, I don't because I'm right.


It's my default for calling a spade a spade.....you're a foreigner. US politics aren't your backyard. Your opinion on this particular conversation has no meaning or even any significant level of importance to the issue at hand. You want to be relevant? Become a citizen of the US...



Well, it does appear that a foreigner had to advise you of the ACTUAL criteria for declaring a President unfit and removing him form office. Perhaps you should brush up on your civics so as not to let foreigners educate you on your own country. Might be an idea...


Here we go, round and round again....simply because you refuse to answer a simple question.

I've known (likely for longer than you've been alive) what the law is regarding how a President can be impeached...that was not the question that I asked you which you continually refuse to answer.

The question I asked you was (since you're the consummate professional attempting to school another poster, who IS an actual citizen) what is your criteria for deeming a President unfit for office, not for the law regarding how a President can be impeached.


..and I told you... I would not like to add any criteria to the law. I'd rather not add more silly opinions to your silly opinions.


Bill Clinton lied publicly one time about getting sexual services ... and he got impeached for it.

How many times has Trump lied publicly about far, far more important matters???


Bill lied under oath. Come on now... you know that.


Was he impeached for lying?

That's the point.


He as impeached for lying


that is the answer to the question....he was impeached for lying...under oath, not under oath, doesn't matter....the question was specific and the answer is specific....Was he impeached for lying? ... the answer to that is "yes"....you and your extraneous commentary is exhausting.


Actually it does matter. There is a big difference.
So no, Clinton was never impeached for lying. He was impeached for lying under oath.


Actually, it does not matter. The context of the question you were being asked was specifically..."was he impeached for lying"....no mention of under oath or not was forwarded (as youre always wanting to play the strawman game)....it could later have been discussed the specifics of how/when he was lying, but the question asked of you was simple, which you never seem to answer in any logical manner.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: UKTruth


Well, you are lol.


It's not my default based upon your perception that I feel stupid, I don't because I'm right.


It's my default for calling a spade a spade.....you're a foreigner. US politics aren't your backyard. Your opinion on this particular conversation has no meaning or even any significant level of importance to the issue at hand. You want to be relevant? Become a citizen of the US...



Well, it does appear that a foreigner had to advise you of the ACTUAL criteria for declaring a President unfit and removing him form office. Perhaps you should brush up on your civics so as not to let foreigners educate you on your own country. Might be an idea...


Here we go, round and round again....simply because you refuse to answer a simple question.

I've known (likely for longer than you've been alive) what the law is regarding how a President can be impeached...that was not the question that I asked you which you continually refuse to answer.

The question I asked you was (since you're the consummate professional attempting to school another poster, who IS an actual citizen) what is your criteria for deeming a President unfit for office, not for the law regarding how a President can be impeached.


..and I told you... I would not like to add any criteria to the law. I'd rather not add more silly opinions to your silly opinions.


Bill Clinton lied publicly one time about getting sexual services ... and he got impeached for it.

How many times has Trump lied publicly about far, far more important matters???


Bill lied under oath. Come on now... you know that.


Was he impeached for lying?

That's the point.


He as impeached for lying


that is the answer to the question....he was impeached for lying...under oath, not under oath, doesn't matter....the question was specific and the answer is specific....Was he impeached for lying? ... the answer to that is "yes"....you and your extraneous commentary is exhausting.


Actually it does matter. There is a big difference.
So no, Clinton was never impeached for lying. He was impeached for lying under oath.


Actually, it does not matter. The context of the question you were being asked was specifically..."was he impeached for lying"....no mention of under oath or not was forwarded (as youre always wanting to play the strawman game)....it could later have been discussed the specifics of how/when he was lying, but the question asked of you was simple, which you never seem to answer in any logical manner.


And my correct answer was that, no, he was not impeached for lying.
He was impeached for lying under oath.
If you are unaware of the difference and the legal ramifications of both then that is your problem.

Now the ACTUAL articles of impeachment passed by the house state:

1 : The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
2: The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.

Glad we could clear up that the Bill Clinton was not impeached for lying. Shall we strike that one off your silly list?

edit on 18/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: alphabetaone

UK seems to know more about American politics than you do.



I thought one-liners were against the T&C on ATS....

Yet, that seems all you're really ever capable of....how is that?

I can say unequivocally, that he certainly does not...and your attempt to fan flames with your trollish behavior is not having it's intended effect.


Your list would imply that you don't know much about your own system of govt.


I see.

So, what I say on some obscure forum is enough to glean what implications should be made about me, but what a President says at the official podium or in his tweets aren't enough to draw implications about him?

Double standard much?


President Trump is not calling you unfit to do your job because you made some silly statements. There is the difference.


President Trump also is not the the one making sweeping statements about me or character assassination against me, you are the one doing that. I'm not having a conversation with Trump. If I were, I would be certain to curb my use of multi-syllable words.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: UKTruth


Well, you are lol.


It's not my default based upon your perception that I feel stupid, I don't because I'm right.


It's my default for calling a spade a spade.....you're a foreigner. US politics aren't your backyard. Your opinion on this particular conversation has no meaning or even any significant level of importance to the issue at hand. You want to be relevant? Become a citizen of the US...



Well, it does appear that a foreigner had to advise you of the ACTUAL criteria for declaring a President unfit and removing him form office. Perhaps you should brush up on your civics so as not to let foreigners educate you on your own country. Might be an idea...


Here we go, round and round again....simply because you refuse to answer a simple question.

I've known (likely for longer than you've been alive) what the law is regarding how a President can be impeached...that was not the question that I asked you which you continually refuse to answer.

The question I asked you was (since you're the consummate professional attempting to school another poster, who IS an actual citizen) what is your criteria for deeming a President unfit for office, not for the law regarding how a President can be impeached.


..and I told you... I would not like to add any criteria to the law. I'd rather not add more silly opinions to your silly opinions.


Bill Clinton lied publicly one time about getting sexual services ... and he got impeached for it.

How many times has Trump lied publicly about far, far more important matters???


Bill lied under oath. Come on now... you know that.


Was he impeached for lying?

That's the point.


He as impeached for lying


that is the answer to the question....he was impeached for lying...under oath, not under oath, doesn't matter....the question was specific and the answer is specific....Was he impeached for lying? ... the answer to that is "yes"....you and your extraneous commentary is exhausting.


Actually it does matter. There is a big difference.
So no, Clinton was never impeached for lying. He was impeached for lying under oath.


Actually, it does not matter. The context of the question you were being asked was specifically..."was he impeached for lying"....no mention of under oath or not was forwarded (as youre always wanting to play the strawman game)....it could later have been discussed the specifics of how/when he was lying, but the question asked of you was simple, which you never seem to answer in any logical manner.


And my correct answer was that, no,


Then it simply wasn't correct. The end.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

"Lying" and "Lying under oath" have 2 different legal contexts.




posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: alphabetaone

"Lying" and "Lying under oath" have 2 different legal contexts.



Yet, it wasn't the question asked. There was no "legal context" in the question.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: UKTruth


Well, you are lol.


It's not my default based upon your perception that I feel stupid, I don't because I'm right.


It's my default for calling a spade a spade.....you're a foreigner. US politics aren't your backyard. Your opinion on this particular conversation has no meaning or even any significant level of importance to the issue at hand. You want to be relevant? Become a citizen of the US...



Well, it does appear that a foreigner had to advise you of the ACTUAL criteria for declaring a President unfit and removing him form office. Perhaps you should brush up on your civics so as not to let foreigners educate you on your own country. Might be an idea...


Here we go, round and round again....simply because you refuse to answer a simple question.

I've known (likely for longer than you've been alive) what the law is regarding how a President can be impeached...that was not the question that I asked you which you continually refuse to answer.

The question I asked you was (since you're the consummate professional attempting to school another poster, who IS an actual citizen) what is your criteria for deeming a President unfit for office, not for the law regarding how a President can be impeached.


..and I told you... I would not like to add any criteria to the law. I'd rather not add more silly opinions to your silly opinions.


Bill Clinton lied publicly one time about getting sexual services ... and he got impeached for it.

How many times has Trump lied publicly about far, far more important matters???


Bill lied under oath. Come on now... you know that.


Was he impeached for lying?

That's the point.


No he wasn't. He as impeached for lying under oath.
What was that about knowing the rules?


Hey, I'm surprised that with your penchant for nitpicking you missed the fact that lying is the key issue in that situation.

Haven't had time to Google the 25th Amendment yet?

Sad.


I will persist in attempting to teach you your own history because I am nice like that.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for lying.


I don't remember Bill Clinton taking the witness stand. Must have been behind closed doors? What did Slick Willy lie about, that was Impeachable? I think even back then the media downplayed it...because they lie a lot too.


He was impeached for lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice.


So a grand-jury could investigate President Trump to determine if he LIED when saying that he was Wire-Tapped? And if he was, an Impeachment?

Maybe Impeachments aren't that big a deal. It just sounds bad. Bill Clinton continued to serve as President..and is now filthy rich..with unlimited bimbos. Lucky guy!



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: UKTruth


Well, you are lol.


It's not my default based upon your perception that I feel stupid, I don't because I'm right.


It's my default for calling a spade a spade.....you're a foreigner. US politics aren't your backyard. Your opinion on this particular conversation has no meaning or even any significant level of importance to the issue at hand. You want to be relevant? Become a citizen of the US...



Well, it does appear that a foreigner had to advise you of the ACTUAL criteria for declaring a President unfit and removing him form office. Perhaps you should brush up on your civics so as not to let foreigners educate you on your own country. Might be an idea...


Here we go, round and round again....simply because you refuse to answer a simple question.

I've known (likely for longer than you've been alive) what the law is regarding how a President can be impeached...that was not the question that I asked you which you continually refuse to answer.

The question I asked you was (since you're the consummate professional attempting to school another poster, who IS an actual citizen) what is your criteria for deeming a President unfit for office, not for the law regarding how a President can be impeached.


..and I told you... I would not like to add any criteria to the law. I'd rather not add more silly opinions to your silly opinions.


Bill Clinton lied publicly one time about getting sexual services ... and he got impeached for it.

How many times has Trump lied publicly about far, far more important matters???


Bill lied under oath. Come on now... you know that.


Was he impeached for lying?

That's the point.


He as impeached for lying


that is the answer to the question....he was impeached for lying...under oath, not under oath, doesn't matter....the question was specific and the answer is specific....Was he impeached for lying? ... the answer to that is "yes"....you and your extraneous commentary is exhausting.


Actually it does matter. There is a big difference.
So no, Clinton was never impeached for lying. He was impeached for lying under oath.


Actually, it does not matter. The context of the question you were being asked was specifically..."was he impeached for lying"....no mention of under oath or not was forwarded (as youre always wanting to play the strawman game)....it could later have been discussed the specifics of how/when he was lying, but the question asked of you was simple, which you never seem to answer in any logical manner.


And my correct answer was that, no,


Then it simply wasn't correct. The end.


Again:
The ACTUAL articles of impeachment passed by the house state:
1 : The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
2: The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.

The. Real. End.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: alphabetaone

UK seems to know more about American politics than you do.



I thought one-liners were against the T&C on ATS....

Yet, that seems all you're really ever capable of....how is that?

I can say unequivocally, that he certainly does not...and your attempt to fan flames with your trollish behavior is not having it's intended effect.


Your list would imply that you don't know much about your own system of govt.


I see.

So, what I say on some obscure forum is enough to glean what implications should be made about me, but what a President says at the official podium or in his tweets aren't enough to draw implications about him?

Double standard much?


President Trump is not calling you unfit to do your job because you made some silly statements. There is the difference.


President Trump also is not the the one making sweeping statements about me or character assassination against me, you are the one doing that. I'm not having a conversation with Trump. If I were, I would be certain to curb my use of multi-syllable words.


I am also not calling for you to lose your job over your silly statements.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: UKTruth


Well, you are lol.


It's not my default based upon your perception that I feel stupid, I don't because I'm right.


It's my default for calling a spade a spade.....you're a foreigner. US politics aren't your backyard. Your opinion on this particular conversation has no meaning or even any significant level of importance to the issue at hand. You want to be relevant? Become a citizen of the US...



Well, it does appear that a foreigner had to advise you of the ACTUAL criteria for declaring a President unfit and removing him form office. Perhaps you should brush up on your civics so as not to let foreigners educate you on your own country. Might be an idea...


Here we go, round and round again....simply because you refuse to answer a simple question.

I've known (likely for longer than you've been alive) what the law is regarding how a President can be impeached...that was not the question that I asked you which you continually refuse to answer.

The question I asked you was (since you're the consummate professional attempting to school another poster, who IS an actual citizen) what is your criteria for deeming a President unfit for office, not for the law regarding how a President can be impeached.


..and I told you... I would not like to add any criteria to the law. I'd rather not add more silly opinions to your silly opinions.


Bill Clinton lied publicly one time about getting sexual services ... and he got impeached for it.

How many times has Trump lied publicly about far, far more important matters???


Bill lied under oath. Come on now... you know that.


Was he impeached for lying?

That's the point.


He as impeached for lying


that is the answer to the question....he was impeached for lying...under oath, not under oath, doesn't matter....the question was specific and the answer is specific....Was he impeached for lying? ... the answer to that is "yes"....you and your extraneous commentary is exhausting.


Actually it does matter. There is a big difference.
So no, Clinton was never impeached for lying. He was impeached for lying under oath.


Actually, it does not matter. The context of the question you were being asked was specifically..."was he impeached for lying"....no mention of under oath or not was forwarded (as youre always wanting to play the strawman game)....it could later have been discussed the specifics of how/when he was lying, but the question asked of you was simple, which you never seem to answer in any logical manner.


And my correct answer was that, no,


Then it simply wasn't correct. The end.


Again:
The ACTUAL articles of impeachment passed by the house state:
1 : The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
2: The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.



YOU, you UKTruth did not answer the question asked to you.... no one is ASKING you about LEGALITIES.....the question asked to YOU was answered incorrectly.

You are wrong. Deal with it.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: alphabetaone

"Lying" and "Lying under oath" have 2 different legal contexts.



It seem the so called experts who don't like foreigners can't quite grasp the concept.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

neither Am i.


I simply think it's far above your station to call out another member on their opinion of Trump being unfit for Presidency especially when Trump proves time and again that THAT opinion has a high degree of validity.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: UKTruth


Well, you are lol.


It's not my default based upon your perception that I feel stupid, I don't because I'm right.


It's my default for calling a spade a spade.....you're a foreigner. US politics aren't your backyard. Your opinion on this particular conversation has no meaning or even any significant level of importance to the issue at hand. You want to be relevant? Become a citizen of the US...



Well, it does appear that a foreigner had to advise you of the ACTUAL criteria for declaring a President unfit and removing him form office. Perhaps you should brush up on your civics so as not to let foreigners educate you on your own country. Might be an idea...


Here we go, round and round again....simply because you refuse to answer a simple question.

I've known (likely for longer than you've been alive) what the law is regarding how a President can be impeached...that was not the question that I asked you which you continually refuse to answer.

The question I asked you was (since you're the consummate professional attempting to school another poster, who IS an actual citizen) what is your criteria for deeming a President unfit for office, not for the law regarding how a President can be impeached.


..and I told you... I would not like to add any criteria to the law. I'd rather not add more silly opinions to your silly opinions.


Bill Clinton lied publicly one time about getting sexual services ... and he got impeached for it.

How many times has Trump lied publicly about far, far more important matters???


Bill lied under oath. Come on now... you know that.


Was he impeached for lying?

That's the point.


He as impeached for lying


that is the answer to the question....he was impeached for lying...under oath, not under oath, doesn't matter....the question was specific and the answer is specific....Was he impeached for lying? ... the answer to that is "yes"....you and your extraneous commentary is exhausting.


Actually it does matter. There is a big difference.
So no, Clinton was never impeached for lying. He was impeached for lying under oath.


Actually, it does not matter. The context of the question you were being asked was specifically..."was he impeached for lying"....no mention of under oath or not was forwarded (as youre always wanting to play the strawman game)....it could later have been discussed the specifics of how/when he was lying, but the question asked of you was simple, which you never seem to answer in any logical manner.


And my correct answer was that, no,


Then it simply wasn't correct. The end.


Again:
The ACTUAL articles of impeachment passed by the house state:
1 : The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
2: The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.



YOU, you UKTruth did not answer the question asked to you.... no one is ASKING you about LEGALITIES.....the question asked to YOU was answered incorrectly.

You are wrong. Deal with it.


I answered the exact question.
Question: Was Bill Clinton impeached for lying?
Answer : No, Bill Clinton was not impeached for lying. 100% correct answer.

Now the fact I advised on the actual reason he was impeached is a bonus for you.

So, the only one that has to deal with it is you. You are wrong that Clinton was impeached for lying.
Facts matter.
edit on 18/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: alphabetaone

"Lying" and "Lying under oath" have 2 different legal contexts.



It seem the so called experts who don't like foreigners can't quite grasp the concept.


I love foreigners.

That doesn't make your opinion worth anything, irrespective of that.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You're wrong.


Deal with it.




top topics



 
158
<< 313  314  315    317  318  319 >>

log in

join