The biggest difference is you all hold those in Washington D.C to a lot higher esteem than I do. Clyde what I was trying to say is the congressional hearing IMO was nothing but a bunch of show boating by members of that committee. It had nothing to do with the problems of the USA or the the rest of the world.

 

If there were a judge who was under investigation, and it looked pretty likely that he was going to be removed from the bench, do you think it is ok for anyone before him in his court to just do and say whatever they want with no regard for the law, lie under oath, etc.?

If there were a judge who was under investigation, and it looked pretty likely that he was going to be removed from the bench, do you think it is ok for anyone before him in his court to just do and say whatever they want with no regard for the law, lie under oath, etc.?

 

First of all, I am by far the legal expert. I would wonder what he is being removed for. Furthermore I am not a liar and don't appreciate anyone that does. Now you are talking about a court of law with a judge. Not a committee hearing with a bunch of politicians, grandstanding and looking like they are supporting there constituents back home. I guess legally there is no difference. To me there is a big difference...

 

VOR I usually find myself agreeing with you. I just think we're looking at a differently.

It's not a matter of "esteem." It's a matter of law. Roger should have taken the McGwire route and say nothing. Instead, he lied. That broke the law. Simple distinction to me even if you are correct about the committee. However, the showboating part is not a "get out of prosecution free" card.

 

Actually Roger is accused of lying. He is presumed innocent, correct. I do get your point. I would have looked at it differently if he was somewhere besides Capital Hill.

First of all, I am by far the legal expert. I would wonder what he is being removed for. Furthermore I am not a liar and don't appreciate anyone that does. Now you are talking about a court of law with a judge. Not a committee hearing with a bunch of politicians, grandstanding and looking like they are supporting there constituents back home. I guess legally there is no difference. To me there is a big difference...

 

VOR I usually find myself agreeing with you. I just think we're looking at a differently.

 

That is what I am saying.

Actually Roger is accused of lying. He is presumed innocent, correct. .

 

He is presumed innocent....in the court.

 

I, however, am not in the court so I can say with impunity that he is guilty.

I guess it's kind of like the old wild west. Those towns that had criminals shooting up the bar every night and doing what they wanted, it was the town's fault because they didn't have a strong sheriff. The criminals are blameless because the sheriff and the town let them do it. Is that what you are saying?

 

In today's day and age, if you let people get away with something they will keep doing it until you do something about it. In football if someone is always holding or always grabbing someone's facemask, and the refs know its going on but just let the player keep doing it, do you think they will stop on their own? Would we say man that is such a horrible thing to do for that player to be doing that, and how he should stop even though the refs never call it? I am assuming you have played sports, and I am assume you probably would do things that gave you in advantage that might have been against the rules. From acting like you tagged someone out, even if you know you missed. To possibly holding someone in football, or fouling someone in basketball even though it didn't get called. If no one stops you from doing that, and they allow you to. Then usually your keep doing it, if it helps you or the team out. The only way to stop players from doing that, is to enforce rules. They knew what was going on, and they did nothing about. Yet they decide to try to go back and get those guys, after they allowed it to happen. That is wrong.

 

(I honestly believe that Bud Selig and other people might have even encouraged it back then to try to get fans back in the game.)

He is presumed innocent....in the court.

 

I, however, am not in the court so I can say with impunity that he is guilty.

 

Gotcha !

In today's day and age, if you let people get away with something they will keep doing it until you do something about it. In football if someone is always holding or always grabbing someone's facemask, and the refs know its going on but just let the player keep doing it, do you think they will stop on their own? Would we say man that is such a horrible thing to do for that player to be doing that, and how he should stop even though the refs never call it? I am assuming you have played sports, and I am assume you probably would do things that gave you in advantage that might have been against the rules. From acting like you tagged someone out, even if you know you missed. To possibly holding someone in football, or fouling someone in basketball even though it didn't get called. If no one stops you from doing that, and they allow you to. Then usually your keep doing it, if it helps you or the team out. The only way to stop players from doing that, is to enforce rules. They knew what was going on, and they did nothing about. Yet they decide to try to go back and get those guys, after they allowed it to happen. That is wrong.

 

(I honestly believe that Bud Selig and other people might have even encouraged it back then to try to get fans back in the game.)

If you have Netflix there is an AWESOME documentary on steroids. Basically a lot of people were making money off of it behind the scenes from Hollywood, Athletes, Owners etc. Then they try to act clean. People like Stallone, Arnold, Selig+Bush owning teams etc. They also debunked a lot of myths about roids that are more rumor than science. It was pretty cool. 3 brothers that were power lifters out of NY. Two were on roids and one wasn't.

If you have Netflix there is an AWESOME documentary on steroids. Basically a lot of people were making money off of it behind the scenes from Hollywood, Athletes, Owners etc. Then they try to act clean. People like Stallone, Arnold, Selig+Bush owning teams etc. They also debunked a lot of myths about roids that are more rumor than science. It was pretty cool. 3 brothers that were power lifters out of NY. Two were on roids and one wasn't.

 

Whats the name of the documentary?

In today's day and age, if you let people get away with something they will keep doing it until you do something about it. In football if someone is always holding or always grabbing someone's facemask, and the refs know its going on but just let the player keep doing it, do you think they will stop on their own? Would we say man that is such a horrible thing to do for that player to be doing that, and how he should stop even though the refs never call it? I am assuming you have played sports, and I am assume you probably would do things that gave you in advantage that might have been against the rules. From acting like you tagged someone out, even if you know you missed. To possibly holding someone in football, or fouling someone in basketball even though it didn't get called. If no one stops you from doing that, and they allow you to. Then usually your keep doing it, if it helps you or the team out. The only way to stop players from doing that, is to enforce rules. They knew what was going on, and they did nothing about. Yet they decide to try to go back and get those guys, after they allowed it to happen. That is wrong.

 

(I honestly believe that Bud Selig and other people might have even encouraged it back then to try to get fans back in the game.)

 

Well thought out and I don't disagree. But that has nothing to do with lieing under oath to Congress. Clemens should have kept his mouth shut and stayed away. Instead, he insisted on testifying (lieing). Ego. Thinking he could lie and get away with it and keep his plaque in the Hall. All your statement above has nothing to do with perjury.

On the one hand, I'm about 99.4% sure that Roger roided up and lied about it.

 

On the other hand, this country is about two weeks from defaulting and the powers-that-be are wasting time on this?

On the one hand, I'm about 99.4% sure that Roger roided up and lied about it.

 

On the other hand, this country is about two weeks from defaulting and the powers-that-be are wasting time on this?

 

Amen Brother ! Wasting time and money...

On the one hand, I'm about 99.4% sure that Roger roided up and lied about it.

 

On the other hand, this country is about two weeks from defaulting and the powers-that-be are wasting time on this?

 

What does a federal prosecutor have to do with the budget/debt issue? I know what you are saying but the prosecutor's job is to uphold the laws of the US and not let anyone make a mockery of the US laws.