Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #449373 > unrolled thread
| Started by | a.m <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-28 13:47 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-04-30 08:28 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 143 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 13:47 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-29 09:40 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2018-04-29 16:33 +0100
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 15:56 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 09:07 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 16:12 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 09:30 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 16:48 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:07 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 17:20 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:29 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 17:44 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:48 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-29 19:37 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-30 18:27 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-30 18:59 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 16:02 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-30 23:24 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-29 19:34 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 16:50 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-29 13:06 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 17:40 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 05:23 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2018-04-29 22:48 +0100
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 15:23 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-29 19:38 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 16:50 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-30 00:29 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-29 19:32 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 16:53 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:06 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 17:25 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:29 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 17:45 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 10:40 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:45 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 11:05 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 18:06 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 11:30 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 12:06 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 12:08 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 12:15 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-29 19:35 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 05:27 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:18 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-29 13:06 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2018-04-29 22:46 +0100
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-30 00:31 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:04 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-29 13:05 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 17:48 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-30 07:38 -0500
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 05:49 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 08:05 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-30 16:33 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 10:27 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 07:55 -0500
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2018-05-01 14:35 +0100
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 09:58 -0500
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:23 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 19:37 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2018-05-02 15:48 +0100
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-02 14:54 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 07:31 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-29 19:29 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 16:53 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-30 07:41 -0500
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-30 08:50 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-30 08:53 -0500
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-30 11:19 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-30 08:22 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 08:44 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 10:33 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 11:17 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 11:27 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-30 18:52 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 12:51 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-30 20:57 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 14:05 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-30 21:19 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 14:24 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:33 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 14:55 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 15:05 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 15:09 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:30 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 18:21 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 14:26 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:21 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-30 21:37 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:43 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-30 23:07 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-30 17:41 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:44 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 14:15 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:24 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 14:45 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:52 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 15:01 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 15:17 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 15:53 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-30 23:32 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 16:36 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 00:02 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 18:35 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 17:50 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 18:31 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:03 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 19:12 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:29 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 19:33 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:40 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 12:06 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 12:49 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 14:02 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:12 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 14:17 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:25 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-30 21:26 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:31 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-30 23:16 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 16:33 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-30 23:40 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 16:48 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-30 23:57 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 17:41 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 18:33 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 01:51 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 18:56 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 02:05 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 19:30 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 02:35 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 20:29 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:04 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-30 17:44 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:50 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 15:06 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 15:11 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 15:49 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 03:24 +0000
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:02 -0700
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-29 19:26 -0400
Re: Obama accomplishes nothing in 8 years, wins Nobel Prize... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-30 08:28 -0700
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 19:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pcaunm$7al$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #449878 |
Doomsdrzej wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On Tue, 1 May 2018 14:35:39 +0100, William Poaster <wp@dev.null> > wrote: > >>On 1/5/2018 13:55 in comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv posted: >> >>> owl wrote: >>> >>>>But I think Kim wants to improve his image around >>>>the world, and the Koreas want to be reunited anyway, >>> >>> Why do you think that? North Korea is run, for their own interest, by >>> a tiny group of "elites", with the "million man army" on the next >>> rung, and everyone else below that. Upsetting that status quo could >>> get someone killed. >> >>NK is, & has been run, by a one family dictatorship. Anyone steps out >>of line, or disagrees, they are executed. >> >>Trump wishes he could run the US in the same way > > < snip, unread, filtered > > > Complete idiocy. So you say. -- Good night to spend with family, but avoid arguments with your mate's new lover.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Poaster <wp@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 15:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <emvore-975.ln1@debian.machineone.org> |
| In reply to | #449957 |
On 2/5/2018 00:37 in comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom posted: > Doomsdrzej wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> On Tue, 1 May 2018 14:35:39 +0100, William Poaster <wp@dev.null> >> wrote: >> >>>On 1/5/2018 13:55 in comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv posted: >>> >>>> owl wrote: >>>> >>>>>But I think Kim wants to improve his image around >>>>>the world, and the Koreas want to be reunited anyway, >>>> >>>> Why do you think that? North Korea is run, for their own interest, by >>>> a tiny group of "elites", with the "million man army" on the next >>>> rung, and everyone else below that. Upsetting that status quo could >>>> get someone killed. >>> >>>NK is, & has been run, by a one family dictatorship. Anyone steps out >>>of line, or disagrees, they are executed. >>> >>>Trump wishes he could run the US in the same way >> >> < snip, unread, filtered > >> >> Complete idiocy. > > So you say. Indeed. The complete idiots are the likes of Doomsdreck & his ilk. In fact he & his other nyms have been <filtered, unread> for quite a long time now. :-) -- By W3Cook's analysis of Alexa's data, 96.3 percent of the top 1 million web servers are running Linux. The remainder is split between Windows, 1.9 percent, and FreeBSD, 1.8 percent. ZDNet - October 2015.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 14:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fku1p5FstduU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450035 |
William Poaster <wp@dev.null> wrote: > On 2/5/2018 00:37 in comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom posted: > >> Doomsdrzej wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> >>> On Tue, 1 May 2018 14:35:39 +0100, William Poaster <wp@dev.null> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/5/2018 13:55 in comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv posted: >>>> >>>>> owl wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But I think Kim wants to improve his image around >>>>>> the world, and the Koreas want to be reunited anyway, >>>>> >>>>> Why do you think that? North Korea is run, for their own interest, by >>>>> a tiny group of "elites", with the "million man army" on the next >>>>> rung, and everyone else below that. Upsetting that status quo could >>>>> get someone killed. >>>> >>>> NK is, & has been run, by a one family dictatorship. Anyone steps out >>>> of line, or disagrees, they are executed. >>>> >>>> Trump wishes he could run the US in the same way >>> >>> < snip, unread, filtered > >>> >>> Complete idiocy. >> >> So you say. > > Indeed. The complete idiots are the likes of Doomsdreck & his ilk. > > In fact he & his other nyms have been <filtered, unread> for quite a > long time now. :-) > He is at this point the epitome of the fear / emotion based conservative. He has no sign of critical thinking or reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 07:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkrc2gFaimkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449844 |
On 5/1/18 5:55 AM, chrisv wrote: > owl wrote: > >> But I think Kim wants to improve his image around >> the world, and the Koreas want to be reunited anyway, > > Why do you think that? North Korea is run, for their own interest, by > a tiny group of "elites", with the "million man army" on the next > rung, and everyone else below that. Upsetting that status quo could > get someone killed. > > It's difficult to apply logic to such a fscked-up situation. Any > decent person finds it almost incomprehensible that a country that > can't even keep the lights on is spending money on rockets and atomic > bombs. But, apparently, that strategy is working, for the tiny group > that is in power... > The US spend more on its military as our infrastructure crumbles and we have massive numbers of people in prison and who are homeless and who have no health care. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 19:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <28lced9nifba44006jd94o29spb5rhjjr8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449498 |
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 16:33:29 +0100, William Poaster <wp@dev.null> wrote: >On 29/4/2018 14:40 in comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom posted: > >> a.m wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> >>> ... President Donald Trump brings peace to a part of the world that >>> has been at war for 65 years, eradicates ISIS and opens Saudi Arabia >>> to social progress and is compared to Adolf Hitler. >> >> Trump brought peace to Korea? He wasn't at that meeting. Plus, >> the word on the street is that North Korea has fooled U.S. Presidents >> before. > >And the Orange Idiot is the biggest fool of all. Trump is *only* for >Trump, & screw everyone else....and from some of teh stories (Stormy >Daniels etc) it seems like he has! Question for you: if Trump indeed had a consensual relationship with some over-the-hill porn actress a decade ago (and I'm not saying that he did), what does it prove? Are consensual sexual encounters a crime now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkn478Fca94U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449579 |
On 4/29/18 4:29 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 16:33:29 +0100, William Poaster <wp@dev.null> > wrote: > >> On 29/4/2018 14:40 in comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom posted: >> >>> a.m wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >>> >>>> ... President Donald Trump brings peace to a part of the world that >>>> has been at war for 65 years, eradicates ISIS and opens Saudi Arabia >>>> to social progress and is compared to Adolf Hitler. >>> >>> Trump brought peace to Korea? He wasn't at that meeting. Plus, >>> the word on the street is that North Korea has fooled U.S. Presidents >>> before. >> >> And the Orange Idiot is the biggest fool of all. Trump is *only* for >> Trump, & screw everyone else....and from some of teh stories (Stormy >> Daniels etc) it seems like he has! > > Question for you: if Trump indeed had a consensual relationship with > some over-the-hill porn actress a decade ago (and I'm not saying that > he did), what does it prove? > > Are consensual sexual encounters a crime now? > Given that few if any question Trump's morals, it would not prove much more than what we already know about him. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 07:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rj3eed9holrs5aaa46hnfcan95ek6itq6k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449579 |
Doomsdrzej wrote: >Are consensual sexual encounters a crime now? The Repugs sure obsessed over them, when there was a Democrat in the White House. -- "It's the freetard scum who constantly lie and make bullshit posts. Get back to us the day that freetard scumbags are able to crawl their way to the bottom of the well." - Ezekreep
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 08:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <s74eedd59d0uoau8tph12m412ct27e1qrv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449623 |
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:41:46 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >Doomsdrzej wrote: > >>Are consensual sexual encounters a crime now? > >The Repugs sure obsessed over them, when there was a Democrat in the >White House. It happened _in_ the White House _during_ Clinton's reign though. This is very different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 08:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <056eed5f9rebrf4mna3bnnq6kef4e46h8j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449625 |
Doomsdrzej wrote: >This is very different. Of course, you would claim that. Reasonable, unbiased people see it as an insignificant event. It was a fscking *blow job* for Pete's sake! Compare this to, for example, a *war*. Sheesh. -- "China is still here." - "GreyCloud", providing "evidence" that The Great Wall worked as intended.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 11:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <duceedpqbv6a14ajgrk7sk9l3ghego3irt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449633 |
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 08:53:04 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >Doomsdrzej wrote: > >>This is very different. > >Of course, you would claim that. > >Reasonable, unbiased people see it as an insignificant event. > >It was a fscking *blow job* for Pete's sake! Compare this to, for >example, a *war*. > >Sheesh. I'm not disagreeing that what Clinton did was insignificant. In fact, I'm surprised that it essentially led to his impeachment considering how minor the whole thing is. However, the difference is that what Trump did/didn't do happened way before he even considered becoming the President and definitely not during it. That one argument makes it different than what Clinton did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 08:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <132eb9dc-5a59-48bb-a25c-e14aa8f0af52@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449645 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 11:19:36 AM UTC-4, Doomsdrzej wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 08:53:04 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > > >Doomsdrzej wrote: > > > >>This is very different. > > > >Of course, you would claim that. > > > >Reasonable, unbiased people see it as an insignificant event. > > > >It was a fscking *blow job* for Pete's sake! Compare this to, for > >example, a *war*. > > > >Sheesh. > > I'm not disagreeing that what Clinton did was insignificant. In fact, > I'm surprised that it essentially led to his impeachment considering > how minor the whole thing is. However, the difference is that what > Trump did/didn't do happened way before he even considered becoming > the President and definitely not during it. That one argument makes it > different than what Clinton did. True, there are differences (but then again, there always are) and in the case of #45, the method by which there was suppression appears to have violated campaign finance laws. As such, the crime wasn't in as much as the crime (as Prostitution is _still_ illegal in most States), but rather, the attempt to cover it up. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 08:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <760259de-95eb-494f-add7-8cacbdc451b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449645 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:19:36 AM UTC-6, Doomsdrzej wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 08:53:04 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > > >Doomsdrzej wrote: > > > >>This is very different. > > > >Of course, you would claim that. > > > >Reasonable, unbiased people see it as an insignificant event. > > > >It was a fscking *blow job* for Pete's sake! Compare this to, for > >example, a *war*. > > > >Sheesh. > > I'm not disagreeing that what Clinton did was insignificant. Clinton's impeachment issue was only tangentially related to sex. That some attempt to equivocate in pursuit of their agenda doesn't change that fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkp2beFpf82U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449651 |
On 4/30/18 8:44 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:19:36 AM UTC-6, Doomsdrzej wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 08:53:04 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> Doomsdrzej wrote: >>> >>>> This is very different. >>> >>> Of course, you would claim that. >>> >>> Reasonable, unbiased people see it as an insignificant event. >>> >>> It was a fscking *blow job* for Pete's sake! Compare this to, for >>> example, a *war*. >>> >>> Sheesh. >> >> I'm not disagreeing that what Clinton did was insignificant. > > Clinton's impeachment issue was only tangentially related to sex. > That some attempt to equivocate in pursuit of their agenda doesn't > change that fact. > He had an affair. Yes, he lied about it... but it was an affair, not an open marriage. Do not get me wrong, I am no fan of the Clintons (not a huge one of Bill and *far* less of Hillary). But the impeachment came from Republicans pushing politics to find a reason to impeach... not from any real significant issue. And it ended with Clinton being acquitted on all charges. Of course, like it is now, this is heavily tied to party politics. Trump *cannot* be impeached now (at least successfully) with his party in power. Come 2019, though, when the Democrats have a decent chance to regain control and things might change. It is a shame how much is tied to party loyalty (on both sides). -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 11:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed6c3f95-324a-4edd-af81-7b37eb06c75a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449668 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 11:33:39 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/18 8:44 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:19:36 AM UTC-6, Doomsdrzej wrote: > >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 08:53:04 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Doomsdrzej wrote: > >>> > >>>> This is very different. > >>> > >>> Of course, you would claim that. > >>> > >>> Reasonable, unbiased people see it as an insignificant event. > >>> > >>> It was a fscking *blow job* for Pete's sake! Compare this to, for > >>> example, a *war*. > >>> > >>> Sheesh. > >> > >> I'm not disagreeing that what Clinton did was insignificant. > > > > Clinton's impeachment issue was only tangentially related to sex. > > That some attempt to equivocate in pursuit of their agenda doesn't > > change that fact. > > > He had an affair. He didn't get impeached for that. > Do not get me wrong, I am no fan of the Clintons (not a huge one of Bill > and *far* less of Hillary). But the impeachment came from Republicans > pushing politics to find a reason to impeach His "impeachment came from" his lying under oath. > ... not from any real significant issue. Lying is one thing, lying to your wife is another... but lying under oath takes it to another level. No matter what the topic, it doesn't get any more "significant" than that. Face it, there's no amount of spin that can change this fact. > And it ended with Clinton being acquitted on all charges. It ended with a special deal that was *sort of* like a plea bargain, a deal where he had to admit his guilt on the weasel wording he used to avoid the obvious, pay thousands in fines and suspension of his law license. IOW, despite all your agenda driven efforts to downplay the realities regarding significance and how it ended, the facts are there for anyone who bothers to look. > Of course, like it is now, this is heavily tied to party politics. Trump > *cannot* be impeached now (at least successfully) Any POTUS *can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing that has not happened.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 11:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkp5g6Fq5umU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449672 |
On 4/30/18 11:17 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 11:33:39 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 4/30/18 8:44 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:19:36 AM UTC-6, Doomsdrzej wrote: >>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 08:53:04 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Doomsdrzej wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This is very different. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, you would claim that. >>>>> >>>>> Reasonable, unbiased people see it as an insignificant event. >>>>> >>>>> It was a fscking *blow job* for Pete's sake! Compare this to, for >>>>> example, a *war*. >>>>> >>>>> Sheesh. >>>> >>>> I'm not disagreeing that what Clinton did was insignificant. >>> >>> Clinton's impeachment issue was only tangentially related to sex. >>> That some attempt to equivocate in pursuit of their agenda doesn't >>> change that fact. >>> >> He had an affair. > > He didn't get impeached for that. Other than lying about having sex outside of his marriage (and related dishonesty tied to that) what wrong do you think he was being charged with? >> Do not get me wrong, I am no fan of the Clintons (not a huge one of Bill >> and *far* less of Hillary). But the impeachment came from Republicans >> pushing politics to find a reason to impeach > > His "impeachment came from" his lying under oath. About an affair. If merely lying under oath was enough to justify an impeachment then Trump would have already been impeached. <http://www.newsweek.com/mr-speaker-stop-trump-let-gop-lose-election-489797> OR <https://goo.gl/9HVAvG> Again, NOT defending Clinton. Having an affair is wrong... but it should not rise to the level of impeachment. >> ... not from any real significant issue. > > Lying is one thing, lying to your wife is another... but lying > under oath takes it to another level. No matter what the topic, > it doesn't get any more "significant" than that. Face it, there's > no amount of spin that can change this fact. Then Trump should be impeached. Maybe he will be. But it was politics that lead to Clinton's impeachment, not any sense of a real harm or risk being done from the White House. >> And it ended with Clinton being acquitted on all charges. > > It ended with a special deal that was *sort of* like a plea bargain, > a deal where he had to admit his guilt on the weasel wording he > used to avoid the obvious, pay thousands in fines and suspension > of his law license. IOW, despite all your agenda driven efforts to > downplay the realities regarding significance and how it ended, > the facts are there for anyone who bothers to look. He was acquitted of all charges. >> Of course, like it is now, this is heavily tied to party politics. Trump >> *cannot* be impeached now (at least successfully) > > Any POTUS *can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has > surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing > that has not happened. Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> OR <https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real candidate in 2020). -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <azxcv9093.avhu3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449675 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/18 11:17 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 11:33:39 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> On 4/30/18 8:44 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:19:36 AM UTC-6, Doomsdrzej wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 08:53:04 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Doomsdrzej wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is very different. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, you would claim that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Reasonable, unbiased people see it as an insignificant event. >>>>>> >>>>>> It was a fscking *blow job* for Pete's sake! Compare this to, for >>>>>> example, a *war*. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sheesh. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not disagreeing that what Clinton did was insignificant. >>>> >>>> Clinton's impeachment issue was only tangentially related to sex. >>>> That some attempt to equivocate in pursuit of their agenda doesn't >>>> change that fact. >>>> >>> He had an affair. >> >> He didn't get impeached for that. > > Other than lying about having sex outside of his marriage (and related > dishonesty tied to that) what wrong do you think he was being charged with? > >>> Do not get me wrong, I am no fan of the Clintons (not a huge one of Bill >>> and *far* less of Hillary). But the impeachment came from Republicans >>> pushing politics to find a reason to impeach >> >> His "impeachment came from" his lying under oath. > > About an affair. > > If merely lying under oath was enough to justify an impeachment then > Trump would have already been impeached. > > <http://www.newsweek.com/mr-speaker-stop-trump-let-gop-lose-election-489797> > OR <https://goo.gl/9HVAvG> > > Again, NOT defending Clinton. Having an affair is wrong... but it should > not rise to the level of impeachment. > >>> ... not from any real significant issue. >> >> Lying is one thing, lying to your wife is another... but lying >> under oath takes it to another level. No matter what the topic, >> it doesn't get any more "significant" than that. Face it, there's >> no amount of spin that can change this fact. > > Then Trump should be impeached. Maybe he will be. But it was politics > that lead to Clinton's impeachment, not any sense of a real harm or risk > being done from the White House. > >>> And it ended with Clinton being acquitted on all charges. >> >> It ended with a special deal that was *sort of* like a plea bargain, >> a deal where he had to admit his guilt on the weasel wording he >> used to avoid the obvious, pay thousands in fines and suspension >> of his law license. IOW, despite all your agenda driven efforts to >> downplay the realities regarding significance and how it ended, >> the facts are there for anyone who bothers to look. > > He was acquitted of all charges. > >>> Of course, like it is now, this is heavily tied to party politics. Trump >>> *cannot* be impeached now (at least successfully) >> >> Any POTUS *can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has >> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing >> that has not happened. > > Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. > > <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> > OR <https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his > party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... > few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to > get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real > candidate in 2020). > > He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't make the answers lies. Do you have some *proof* of lies? One or your ridiculous links has Trump asked if he had thought much over a period of time about running for politics. He said no. That is supposedly one of the examples of him "lying under oath." LOL!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 12:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpaeoFr8tpU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449679 |
On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: >>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has >>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing >>> that has not happened. >> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. >> >> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> >> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his >> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... >> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to >> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real >> candidate in 2020). >> >> > He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't > make the answers lies. The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? > Do you have some*proof* of lies? The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of his dishonesty. :) > One or your > ridiculous links has Trump asked if he had thought much over a period > of time about running for politics. He said no. That is supposedly > one of the examples of him "lying under oath." LOL! He has considered it since at least 1987, and spoke of it publicly. If you go by Carroll's standard, ANY lie should count... but, sure, I would say going after him for that would be idiotic. But what has Trump ever been honest about? :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 20:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pszb993ga.abhuo@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449686 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: >>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has >>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing >>>> that has not happened. >>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. >>> >>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> >>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his >>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... >>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to >>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real >>> candidate in 2020). >>> >>> >> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't >> make the answers lies. > > The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? > Because that was their so-called proof of his lies under oath. >> Do you have some*proof* of lies? > > The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of > his dishonesty. :) > Do you have proof of him lying under oath? You sure posted a bunch of links that supposedly show that, but not one of does. >> One or your >> ridiculous links has Trump asked if he had thought much over a period >> of time about running for politics. He said no. That is supposedly >> one of the examples of him "lying under oath." LOL! > > He has considered it since at least 1987, and spoke of it publicly. If > you go by Carroll's standard, ANY lie should count... but, sure, I would > say going after him for that would be idiotic. > > But what has Trump ever been honest about? :) > Under oath? Everything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49eb6f2b-dc5c-49c5-8961-2a8e3885eed4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449689 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 2:57:06 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: > >>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has > >>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing > >>>> that has not happened. > >>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. > >>> > >>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> > >>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his > >>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... > >>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to > >>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real > >>> candidate in 2020). > >>> > >>> > >> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't > >> make the answers lies. > > > > The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? > > > > Because that was their so-called proof of his lies under oath. > > >> Do you have some*proof* of lies? > > > > The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of > > his dishonesty. :) > > > > Do you have proof of him lying under oath? You sure posted a bunch of > links that supposedly show that, but not one of does. Don't tell me you actually went on that fishing expedition of his?! If Snit had a quote, he'd quote it... you know this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 21:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hl99880ba.3hziee@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449692 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 2:57:06 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> > On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: >> >>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has >> >>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing >> >>>> that has not happened. >> >>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. >> >>> >> >>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> >> >>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his >> >>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... >> >>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to >> >>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real >> >>> candidate in 2020). >> >>> >> >>> >> >> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't >> >> make the answers lies. >> > >> > The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? >> > >> >> Because that was their so-called proof of his lies under oath. >> >> >> Do you have some*proof* of lies? >> > >> > The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of >> > his dishonesty. :) >> > >> >> Do you have proof of him lying under oath? You sure posted a bunch of >> links that supposedly show that, but not one of does. > > Don't tell me you actually went on that fishing expedition of his?! > If Snit had a quote, he'd quote it... you know this. Yeah. He made some wild claims, with links that supposedly backed those claims. So I thought I'd take a look. Oh dear. No prize.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web