Should Clinton have gone to jail for lying under oath and committing perjury? - Page 3

M14 Shooter · 06-08-07, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

Aww, poor baby, you couldn't read it into it could you. The answer is yes sweet pea.

Well, thats logically what your asnwer means, yes.
But its not at all clear why anyone would think you're bright enough to come up with such subtlety.

rockinbod720 · 06-08-07, 05:34 PM

He should have served the same sentence anyone else would.

No one is above the law.

Harshaw · 06-08-07, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoot

And now that they've held power...what have they done? Spent us into bankruptcy

Last I saw, we still have no problem paying our debts and are in no danger of being in a position where we can't.

And, the deficit is less than 3% of GDP, which is actually a bit less than it was under Carter.

Quote:

led us into a failed war

I know there are plenty of you who wish us to lose, but that remains to be seen.

Quote:

literally raped our constitution.

You might want to check the definition and proper use of "literally." And I'll ask the same question I asked in other threads . . . which of our liberties have been taken away? Be specific.

Lerxst · 06-08-07, 05:43 PM

No he should not have. Very few people actually do go to jail for this crime. Further, when they do actually go to jail, their sentencing is usually tempered by the nature of the case they were perjuring themselves in regard to. The fact that millions were wasted by zealot Republicans to try and ruin the man based upon his personal life is what is really criminal if you ask me. All that for nothing, over nothing.

Iriemon · 06-08-07, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harshaw

Last I saw, we still have no problem paying our debts and are in no danger of being in a position where we can't.

I agree we're a bit a aways from bankruptcy, but the Govt is having a problem paying our debts. The Govt has had to borrow more than $500 billion more each year for the past 4 years. And the interest expense on the debt is now exceeding $400 billion a year, meaning we are having to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars every year just to pay the interest on the debt that we have accumulated.

Quote:

And, the deficit is less than 3% of GDP, which is actually a bit less than it was under Carter.

Not quite sure I agree with you there:

Year - Deficit - GDP - % deficit:GDP

1976 -70.5 1825.3 -3.86%
1977 -49.8 2030.9 -2.45%
1978 -54.9 2294.7 -2.39%
1979 -38.7 2563.3 -1.51%
1980 -72.7 2789.5 -2.61%

2000 86.6 9817.0 0.88%
2001 -33.3 10128.0 -0.33%
2002 -317.5 10469.6 -3.03%
2003 -536.1 10960.8 -4.89%
2004 -567.4 11712.5 -4.84%
2005 -493.6 12,455.8 -3.96%
2006 -434.0 13,244.6 -3.28%

Source: CBO.gov.

The deficit % of GDP at 3.3% as of FY06 exceeded all years for Carter. Plus, Carter improved the deficit percentage; Bush came it when it was actually positive and made it much worse.

The more important measure, is the size of the debt. In these figures, showing the debt as a % of GDP, we see the trend for Carter and Bush:

1977 35.4%
1978 34.4%
1979 33.0%
1980 33.3%

2000 57.8%
2001 57.3%
2002 59.5%
2003 61.9%
2004 63.0%
2005 63.7%
2006 64.2%

The debt was reduced in size relative to the economy while Carter was president. Under Bush, the size of the debt has substantially increased.

Under either measure, it's pretty easy to see who wins this comparison.

Lerxst · 06-08-07, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I agree we're a bit a aways from bankruptcy, but the Govt is having a problem paying our debts. The Govt has had to borrow more than $500 billion more each year for the past 4 years. And the interest expense on the debt is now exceeding $400 billion a year, meaning we are having to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars every year just to pay the interest on the debt that we have accumulated.

Not quite sure I agree with you there:

Year - Deficit - GDP - % deficit:GDP

1976 -70.5 1825.3 -3.86%
1977 -49.8 2030.9 -2.45%
1978 -54.9 2294.7 -2.39%
1979 -38.7 2563.3 -1.51%
1980 -72.7 2789.5 -2.61%

2000 86.6 9817.0 0.88%
2001 -33.3 10128.0 -0.33%
2002 -317.5 10469.6 -3.03%
2003 -536.1 10960.8 -4.89%
2004 -567.4 11712.5 -4.84%
2005 -493.6 12,455.8 -3.96%
2006 -434.0 13,244.6 -3.28%

Source: CBO.gov.

The deficit % of GDP at 3.3% as of FY06 exceeded all years for Carter. Plus, Carter improved the deficit percentage; Bush came it when it was actually positive and made it much worse.

The more important measure, is the size of the debt. In these figures, showing the debt as a % of GDP, we see the trend for Carter and Bush:

1977 35.4%
1978 34.4%
1979 33.0%
1980 33.3%

2000 57.8%
2001 57.3%
2002 59.5%
2003 61.9%
2004 63.0%
2005 63.7%
2006 64.2%

The debt was reduced in size relative to the economy while Carter was president. Under Bush, the size of the debt has substantially increased.

Under either measure, it's pretty easy to see who wins this comparison.

Nice tech.

Harshaw · 06-08-07, 05:58 PM

You're making comparisons that I didn't address. My point is, the deficit is miniscule compared to GDP and certainly not outside historical boundaries. There's no seismic shift here.

CBO projects a deficit of about $289BB this year, which is the number I was going on.

Iriemon · 06-08-07, 06:02 PM

Re: Should Clinton have gone to jail for lying under oath and committing perjury?

The answer to the poll question should be, for all Americans, unequivocally "no."

I know things have changed a lot in this country in the last 6 years, and the US is more conservative than it used to be, but Americans should still defend what is a fundamental concept of freedom and liberty which is set out in our Constitution, and that is that people should not go to jail unless they are convicted of a crime.

Clinton was never charged, much less convicted, of any crime. Therefore, he should not have gone to jail. It is as simple as that. No one should go to jail unless charged with a crime and convicted.

It saddens me, in a way, that so many Americans see to be willing to ignore this core, fundamental principle of American liberty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

We all know President Clinton was found guilty for lying under oath and committing perjury.Should he have gone to jail?

Navy "Pride"'s statement is false. He knows it is false as he has been corrected on this point in the past and it has been discussed extensively in prior threads.

Clinton was never found "guilty" of lying under oath, committing perjury, or any other crime. That is a completely fabrication, promulgated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Hoot · 06-08-07, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrickt

Self-defense perjury? How, well, innovative. Can anyone direct me to a legal source that mentions "self-defense perjury"?

It's basic law. If a defendent says "Not guilty" to a charge of murder, but then later is actually found guilty of that murder...please relate to me how many times in the history of our courts have they gone back and charged that individual with perjury? Answer: None

Now, if an individual says "I'm not guilty because Patrickt killed that guy, not me," that is not self defense perjury, but perjury that attempts to falsely incriminate another...this is usually prosecuted.

I recommend Vincent Bugliosi's book "The Betrayal of America"

Hoot · 06-08-07, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockinbod720

He should have served the same sentence anyone else would.

No one is above the law.

This statement is not true in law, either.