Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (445207)	8/19/2003 5:00:43 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

WOW, such effort to dig yourself out of that latrine state of mind you are in.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (445207)	8/19/2003 5:55:09 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

No, he was under a more stringent oath. He was under a Constitutionaly mandated oath not a statutory one. Hehe. Nope, friend. Sorry. You are trying to make an impossible stretch here by claiming the term "uphold" means "must tell the truth during the State of the Union Address." The Constitution merely states that the president should give the state of the union (SOTU), which Bush did. It also states Bush should give his recommendations to Congress. No mandate exists in the Constitution to tell the truth about some event in Africa. And so Bush upheld the Constitution as he even now does. We see here then, that even had Bush flagrantly lied in context of the SOTU address (which no evidence exists proving that he did), he yet did nothing illegal. His "crime" was moral, and we all know you fokes don't give a damn about morality. So this is a non-issue. But in a court of law, there is a clear mandate "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." When a person fails to conform to this mandate, justice demands he pay suitable restitution to that court. Clinton failed the mandate (and he has yet to satisfy the demand for restitution. The mere after-the-fact payment of cash for his perjury is no restitution at all because it would not have been afforded any other American). That is by far a more serious crime than a supposed "lie" that you cannot even begin to prove was a lie.