High Crimes - Why Politicians Are NOT Allowed To Lie!

page: 2
41
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 




On principle, I wish what was written was so....but my wishes don't mean something is.

Also, you completely ignore the fact Bill Clinton lied under oath. He committed perjury. That's why he was impeached....not for the lies he told the American public.


Back to the website....that site is laughable. Like extremely laughable. I had a part time job evaluating websites....i would've had to fail the hell out of it. It's absolutely awful on many objective standards.

Did you just make that website yourself??

Not to mention there's a lot of logic lacking in that argument. Just because you want something to be a certain way, does not make it so. If you look at the argument objectively, it's flawed.




edit on 16-6-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I don't think people accept lying or defend it.
The discussion your leading on about, I suspect, was saying lying is not illegal when not under oath. if so, every politician would be behind bars more than likely.

How lying is dealt with is through the voting booth.

National Security can overcome any and all lies of a potus, and just pretending they had no choice when running for office.

Illegal? no. but it did cost him re-election...not the raising taxes bit, but the BS beforehand that made it centerpiece.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
Also, you completely ignore the fact Bill Clinton lied under oath. He committed perjury. That's why he was impeached....not for the lies he told the American public.

Aha, but he didn't lie.
He said specifically he did not have sexual relations with that woman...

...


and he didn't

sexual relation - the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur

He was using this very specific narrow definition, sexual relations. It was not in the "spirit" of the question, but it was a truth.
It would be like someone asking me if I ate, and I would say "I did not have a single piece of chicken". You may assume I meant I didn't eat...nevermind the 4 pounds of mashed potatos, corn, hot dogs, hamburgers, and other stuff I ate...technically I didn't lie. I said I didn't have chicken..and I didn't.

The world rolled their eyes when details came out and he said...well yeah, but I didn't have actual intercourse..it wasn't a lie, etc...but people felt the spirit of the question should have been observed verses the technical loophole he used.

And..what a stupid, stupid question anyhow.

That is why people ultimately didn't care outside of a gossip piece. Pubkins were all about his bedroom life for some reason because otherwise things were going well.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Make sure you read that again. ANY PUBLIC STATEMENT IS PERJURY IF IT IS A LIE NOT MEANT TO DECEIVE AN ENEMY!!!!!! And this is the crux of the argument. Public officials ARE NOT allowed to lie.


This makes perfect sense, really. You must understand it properly to realize why these political officials, inluding the POTUS, will never be charged with such 'High Crimes'.

What they are doing is NOT Illegal! This becomes clear when you consider an alrenative interpretation of the language of the provision.

While we believe it is not OK for these officials to lie to us, they believe it is, as they are lying in a manner meant to deceive the enemy.

WE, the U.S. Citizens, ARE VEIWED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS THE ENEMY!!!

Since we are viewed as the enemy, then these lies are not illegal.

Is it so hard to believe that the citizens could be considered the enemy of the state? Look at how the U.S. citizens have been treated, look at how the U.S. Constitution is under constant attack, look at all the deception being revealed, look at the economy, the income levels/cost of living increase, look at taxation rates, look at civil freedom restrictions... I could go on and on with things that have been/are being done that clearly do not have the best interests of the U.S. citizens in mind.

Is this how you would treat your own people?

- or -

Is this how you would treat your enemies?


We are currently in a Civil Cold War, with the government covertly and psychologically fighting against the citizens. The government is patiently and methodically breaking the citizens down. They are frequently removing the liberties of the people, removing/restricting their right to protect themselves, establishing control through financial slavery, brain-washing them with tech devices and pop-culture (or, more accurately, pop-vulture) entertainment.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarsInDust
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 

Politicians do plenty of lying before they are elected, I hardly believe that they can just turn this aspect of their personality off once they are elected.

Honestly, if you take this one trait alone, for politicians, I think they ALL fail on this one, and do so monumentally.


You can then only hope that your expectations are met. Or, you can set higher expectations, it is all up to you.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


On principle, I wish what was written was so....but my wishes don't mean something is.

Also, you completely ignore the fact Bill Clinton lied under oath. He committed perjury. That's why he was impeached....not for the lies he told the American public.

Back to the website....that site is laughable. Like extremely laughable. I had a part time job evaluating websites....i would've had to fail the hell out of it. It's absolutely awful on many objective standards.

Did you just make that website yourself??

Not to mention there's a lot of logic lacking in that argument. Just because you want something to be a certain way, does not make it so. If you look at the argument objectively, it's flawed.

edit on 16-6-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


Nice ad-hom attacks there buddy...
Yea, I made the website myself... Love how you judge the appearance of a website over its content. That's critical thinking hard at work.

You apparently have no idea who Jon Roland is. He happens to be a Constitutional scholar and is very well versed in politics. His website doesn't need to be full of flashy graphics when he's trying to convey information, and certainly doesn't need to be aesthetically pleasing to you. There are plenty of websites and sources of information that come from old 90's bulletin boards and newsgroups, but I guess you'll discredit those too since nobody took the time to make them "pretty" enough for you.

Please explain how the argument is flawed with actual references to something instead of your very biased opinion.

~Namaste



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Basically, if I read the original cited literature, take into account the serving nature of public office, and interpret that to mean public officials should be held to a "much higher" (and less lenient legal) standard AND that pretty much everything they say is a lie, which betrays the a fore mentioned higher,less lenient legal standard AND "serving the public" standard; in-essence they should be perfect citizens with no personal monetary interests that can be in anyway by their own service or through it, by association.

That would be a more fair world, I admit. Why does it seem so unobtainable?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


On principle, I wish what was written was so....but my wishes don't mean something is.

Also, you completely ignore the fact Bill Clinton lied under oath. He committed perjury. That's why he was impeached....not for the lies he told the American public.

Back to the website....that site is laughable. Like extremely laughable. I had a part time job evaluating websites....i would've had to fail the hell out of it. It's absolutely awful on many objective standards.

Did you just make that website yourself??

Not to mention there's a lot of logic lacking in that argument. Just because you want something to be a certain way, does not make it so. If you look at the argument objectively, it's flawed.

edit on 16-6-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


Nice ad-hom attacks there buddy...
Yea, I made the website myself... Love how you judge the appearance of a website over its content. That's critical thinking hard at work.

You apparently have no idea who Jon Roland is. He happens to be a Constitutional scholar and is very well versed in politics. His website doesn't need to be full of flashy graphics when he's trying to convey information, and certainly doesn't need to be aesthetically pleasing to you. There are plenty of websites and sources of information that come from old 90's bulletin boards and newsgroups, but I guess you'll discredit those too since nobody took the time to make them "pretty" enough for you.

Please explain how the argument is flawed with actual references to something instead of your very biased opinion.

~Namaste


Dont mind Ghost375 he's a pro Obama, pro govt, piece of trash. Anybody who shills for a govt official on a conspiracy website either works for the govt, is narrow minded or is just a pathetic troll.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
It doesn't matter what the rules are. Not at all.

Murder is illegal, but justified under their rule.

We are not allowed to kill, because we are not the powerful.

That's the difference between citizens and governments.

When citizens preform crimes, they do something illegal.

When governments preform crimes, they pass laws to make their crimes legal.

So, regardless of what all that says, they are "allowed" to lie, because they don't have, like we have, a governing power reigning over them and breathing down their necks like an old dead goose.

The greatest threat to their advantage is the possibility of it being seen and recognized.

If the public sees this corrupt edge, and speaks against it, it will begin to crumble.

Best thing to say here is wake the HELL up, people.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
By now, this has probably already been said, but I thought my opinion important enough to make sure it got posted before I got distracted.

The definition of "enemy" cannot *rationally* be used by someone who was elected to represent a population to reference the population which elected that person!

I realize this is a "round" statement (but not a circular definition), so I will provide a more plain-spoken description. When "Joe" is elected by "population x" to represent them (this applies if Joe is an attorney representing an accused drunk driver, an elected county official ... all the way up to President of The United States"), it is irrational to claim that "population x" (the accused drunk driver, citizens of the county, citizens of The United States") is Joe's enemy.




Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
For one "enemy" needs to be more clearly defined. Foreign enemy such as another nation, or a political opponent within the same country? The Senate and Congress claim to be enemies of one another. Politicians appear to feel the people are the enemy. So the language of enemy must be more clearly defined, if you plan to paint them into a corner.
edit on 15-6-2013 by CAPT PROTON because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-6-2013 by theGleep because: Grammatic clarification



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I often fantasize about "when I run for President" - my platform will be "Look at what a wretched human being I am." If I already "out" myself, it would be pretty tough to suffer embarrassment for someone else doing so. And I think the approach would be distinctive enough (and well-enough appreciated) that I might even stand half a chance.


Originally posted by rickymouse
A congressman usually skirts the subject instead of lying. Another thing they can do is accumulate a lot of evidence to support their claim so the blame can be shifted to others that created the evidence. It almost takes a law degree to run for congress
Knowing exactly what can and cannot be said and how to say it. They hire experts to write their speeches. People who understand the rules. Try to get a straight answer from a politician.
Maybe you can get them to say it is in my opinion or evidence shows. How about saying something like "Well this is not as bad as Benghazi" to change the subject.

There is a hundred ways minimum to get around the law on this
Seems like the devil wrote the loopholes on these laws.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by theGleep
I often fantasize about "when I run for President" - my platform will be "Look at what a wretched human being I am." If I already "out" myself, it would be pretty tough to suffer embarrassment for someone else doing so. And I think the approach would be distinctive enough (and well-enough appreciated) that I might even stand half a chance.


Originally posted by rickymouse
A congressman usually skirts the subject instead of lying. Another thing they can do is accumulate a lot of evidence to support their claim so the blame can be shifted to others that created the evidence. It almost takes a law degree to run for congress
Knowing exactly what can and cannot be said and how to say it. They hire experts to write their speeches. People who understand the rules. Try to get a straight answer from a politician.
Maybe you can get them to say it is in my opinion or evidence shows. How about saying something like "Well this is not as bad as Benghazi" to change the subject.

There is a hundred ways minimum to get around the law on this
Seems like the devil wrote the loopholes on these laws.


Did you used to be the governor of Minnesota?
Did you used to wrestle



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Nope.

reply to post by rickymouse
 



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 



It has GOT to end. We are drowning in this country, and we have the ability to stop it if people would just open their eyes.


How? Sorry for the one word answer or shall I say question.....But if you come up with the HOW, people will join you in this fight!

I know I would right now! I would drop everything and let's do it!!

But and that is a big BUT.....How do we do it? What steps need be taken? Not only this, but we have to have proof of lies and evidence to back it up, not just hear say.....And against EVERYONE we want rid of.....It can't be taken lightly or as a protest....There has to be evidence to support this movement.....
edit on 6/18/2013 by Chrisfishenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 



It has GOT to end. We are drowning in this country, and we have the ability to stop it if people would just open their eyes.


How? Sorry for the one word answer or shall I say question.....But if you come up with the HOW, people will join you in this fight!

I know I would right now! I would drop everything and let's do it!!

But and that is a big BUT.....How do we do it? What steps need be taken? Not only this, but we have to have proof of lies and evidence to back it up, not just hear say.....And against EVERYONE we want rid of.....It can't be taken lightly or as a protest....There has to be evidence to support this movement.....
edit on 6/18/2013 by Chrisfishenstein because: (no reason given)


That, my friend, is the right question to ask.


It will take a group of people, likely much smarter than I, to get together and figure out a way to do it before they try to garner support. I'm sure someone will find some loophole in the laws, that would allow us to throw every politician out of office and start over. Otherwise, I fear the only other tangible option is a revolution.

It won't be until the Government does something that is so insufferable, that the people just can't take it anymore and snap. As long as a large enough group of people have jobs, food on the table, gas in the car, there won't be enough people to make an impact. Once the evils become so horrible that we just snap (think Vietnam war, women's rights, equal rights for minorities, etc) that is when real change can take place. Until then, it's a lot of idle threats and talk.

I long for the day when that changes.

~Namaste





top topics
 
41
<< 1   >>

log in

join