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 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 15:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0d785251-e601-4ce2-ac8f-d2bfebb08514@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449726 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 4:17:20 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/18 3:01 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > > I dunno about "view".... but as to "topic... you *are* the one claiming to have > > produced "evidence" so naturally that'd a focus. I'm asking you if you > > consider your evidence to be as strong as what I showed. A simple yes or > > no would've done it <shrug>. > > In a discussion about Trump's lying under oath (perjury) ... you claimed you presented "evidence". People disagreed. > I have shown evidence that Clinton's impeachment was based on his lying His impeachment was based more than that. You've been given the link, perhaps you should read it instead of trying to 'paraphrase' ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 23:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <z0b80a.aj0o@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449726 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/18 3:01 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... >> I dunno about "view".... but as to "topic... you *are* the one claiming to have >> produced "evidence" so naturally that'd a focus. I'm asking you if you >> consider your evidence to be as strong as what I showed. A simple yes or >> no would've done it <shrug>. > > In a discussion about Trump's lying under oath (perjury) you moved goal > posts to Clinton. You have now asked if I think my evidence is sound. Sure. > > I have shown evidence that Clinton's impeachment was based on his lying > about having sexual relations with someone other than his wife (having > an affair). He did so in a court after swearing not to. This raised the > level of his lying (his affair) to perjury. Additionally he encouraged > others to lie about his affair as well. > > You disagree and think that his impeachment was not about his affair but > then say it WAS about the same things I note there... so not sure what > you think you have even presented evidence about. > Clinton was not charged with having an affair.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 16:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpnkiFu1v6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449742 |
On 4/30/18 4:32 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/30/18 3:01 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> ... >>> I dunno about "view".... but as to "topic... you *are* the one claiming to have >>> produced "evidence" so naturally that'd a focus. I'm asking you if you >>> consider your evidence to be as strong as what I showed. A simple yes or >>> no would've done it <shrug>. >> >> In a discussion about Trump's lying under oath (perjury) you moved goal >> posts to Clinton. You have now asked if I think my evidence is sound. Sure. >> >> I have shown evidence that Clinton's impeachment was based on his lying >> about having sexual relations with someone other than his wife (having >> an affair). He did so in a court after swearing not to. This raised the >> level of his lying (his affair) to perjury. Additionally he encouraged >> others to lie about his affair as well. >> >> You disagree and think that his impeachment was not about his affair but >> then say it WAS about the same things I note there... so not sure what >> you think you have even presented evidence about. > > Clinton was not charged with having an affair. He was charged with the perjury and obstruction of justice intrinsically tied to the affair. But this is beyond obvious and has been beaten to death. Not sure what more there is to add to it. We can continue for weeks to word it in new and interesting ways as we say the same thing and then you can insist I am wrong without ever really making a point. But why? That is rhetorical... there is no good reason. :) -- 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 | 2018-05-01 00:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <saxcvii.buo@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449744 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/18 4:32 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/30/18 3:01 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> ... >>>> I dunno about "view".... but as to "topic... you *are* the one claiming to have >>>> produced "evidence" so naturally that'd a focus. I'm asking you if you >>>> consider your evidence to be as strong as what I showed. A simple yes or >>>> no would've done it <shrug>. >>> >>> In a discussion about Trump's lying under oath (perjury) you moved goal >>> posts to Clinton. You have now asked if I think my evidence is sound. Sure. >>> >>> I have shown evidence that Clinton's impeachment was based on his lying >>> about having sexual relations with someone other than his wife (having >>> an affair). He did so in a court after swearing not to. This raised the >>> level of his lying (his affair) to perjury. Additionally he encouraged >>> others to lie about his affair as well. >>> >>> You disagree and think that his impeachment was not about his affair but >>> then say it WAS about the same things I note there... so not sure what >>> you think you have even presented evidence about. >> >> Clinton was not charged with having an affair. > > He was charged with the perjury and obstruction of justice intrinsically > tied to the affair. But this is beyond obvious and has been beaten to > death. Not sure what more there is to add to it. We can continue for > weeks to word it in new and interesting ways as we say the same thing > and then you can insist I am wrong without ever really making a point. > But why? That is rhetorical... there is no good reason. :) > Why? Because you keep insisting that the crime that he was impeached for was the affair, with the unspoken question being... "Trump has had affairs, so why isn't he impeached?" I believe you also went so far as to express a desire that results of the midterms will determine whether or not he is impeached. That of course is a possibility, since Democrats are so despicable that they would attempt it based on zero evidence of a crime.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 18:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpujjFqujU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449749 |
On 4/30/18 5:02 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/30/18 4:32 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/30/18 3:01 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> I dunno about "view".... but as to "topic... you *are* the one claiming to have >>>>> produced "evidence" so naturally that'd a focus. I'm asking you if you >>>>> consider your evidence to be as strong as what I showed. A simple yes or >>>>> no would've done it <shrug>. >>>> >>>> In a discussion about Trump's lying under oath (perjury) you moved goal >>>> posts to Clinton. You have now asked if I think my evidence is sound. Sure. >>>> >>>> I have shown evidence that Clinton's impeachment was based on his lying >>>> about having sexual relations with someone other than his wife (having >>>> an affair). He did so in a court after swearing not to. This raised the >>>> level of his lying (his affair) to perjury. Additionally he encouraged >>>> others to lie about his affair as well. >>>> >>>> You disagree and think that his impeachment was not about his affair but >>>> then say it WAS about the same things I note there... so not sure what >>>> you think you have even presented evidence about. >>> >>> Clinton was not charged with having an affair. >> >> He was charged with the perjury and obstruction of justice intrinsically >> tied to the affair. But this is beyond obvious and has been beaten to >> death. Not sure what more there is to add to it. We can continue for >> weeks to word it in new and interesting ways as we say the same thing >> and then you can insist I am wrong without ever really making a point. >> But why? That is rhetorical... there is no good reason. :) > > Why? Because you keep insisting that the crime that he was impeached > for was the affair, with the unspoken question being... "Trump has had > affairs, so why isn't he impeached?" Why did you speak this unspoken question of yours? Or were you attributing your question to me? > I believe you also went so far as > to express a desire that results of the midterms will determine whether > or not he is impeached. I noted he cannot be impeached with his party in power but might be after the midterm elections. That had nothing, though, to do with his affairs and I noted given how he is likely to be a one term president they might not even push impeachment then. > That of course is a possibility, since Democrats > are so despicable that they would attempt it based on zero evidence of > a crime. It was Republicans who put the US through an impeachment process which ended with a acquittal. -- 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 17:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5a8e844-74ac-4da1-ae88-d676322f7448@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449719 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:52:22 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>> If you go by Carroll's standard, ANY lie should count... > >>> > >>> If you're lying in front of a grand jury *as* the sworn in POTUS > >>> (especially because you're there due to the fact that you *already* > >>> lied to *another* judge), I would think no reasonable person would > >>> agree with that idea. > >> > >> Your view. Fair enough. > > > > Other than you, I don't know of anyone's reasonable opinion > > that has ever agreed with the idea that a person, who is *also* > > a member of the bar, and who has sworn to defend, protect and > > uphold the Constitution of the United States, would consider it > > OK to lie under oath in a case he was called in about lying under > > oath. The whole thing is ridiculously dishonest. > > I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied it was "OK" to do so. So you share *my* view, then?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 18:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpuc5FqujU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449756 |
On 4/30/18 5:50 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:52:22 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>>>> If you go by Carroll's standard, ANY lie should count... >>>>> >>>>> If you're lying in front of a grand jury *as* the sworn in POTUS >>>>> (especially because you're there due to the fact that you *already* >>>>> lied to *another* judge), I would think no reasonable person would >>>>> agree with that idea. >>>> >>>> Your view. Fair enough. >>> >>> Other than you, I don't know of anyone's reasonable opinion >>> that has ever agreed with the idea that a person, who is *also* >>> a member of the bar, and who has sworn to defend, protect and >>> uphold the Constitution of the United States, would consider it >>> OK to lie under oath in a case he was called in about lying under >>> oath. The whole thing is ridiculously dishonest. >> >> I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied it was "OK" to do so. > > So you share *my* view, then? If you are saying we are in basic agreement that is good. I do not get your need to argue just to argue. -- 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 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33debd13-97ed-4edc-8242-26b44cdfaa94@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449764 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 7:31:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/18 5:50 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:52:22 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > > >>>>>> If you go by Carroll's standard, ANY lie should count... > >>>>> > >>>>> If you're lying in front of a grand jury *as* the sworn in POTUS > >>>>> (especially because you're there due to the fact that you *already* > >>>>> lied to *another* judge), I would think no reasonable person would > >>>>> agree with that idea. > >>>> > >>>> Your view. Fair enough. > >>> > >>> Other than you, I don't know of anyone's reasonable opinion > >>> that has ever agreed with the idea that a person, who is *also* > >>> a member of the bar, and who has sworn to defend, protect and > >>> uphold the Constitution of the United States, would consider it > >>> OK to lie under oath in a case he was called in about lying under > >>> oath. The whole thing is ridiculously dishonest. > >> > >> I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied it was "OK" to do so. > > > > So you share *my* view, then? > > If you are saying we are in basic agreement that is good. I'm not saying anything, I'm clearly asking... and you know that. But you can't answer because of what sits at the top of this post about *my* standard... that you have just essentially agreed with (despite having made the statement at the top).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkq0p0F19eoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449773 |
On 4/30/18 7:03 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 7:31:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 4/30/18 5:50 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:52:22 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> If you go by Carroll's standard, ANY lie should count... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you're lying in front of a grand jury *as* the sworn in POTUS >>>>>>> (especially because you're there due to the fact that you *already* >>>>>>> lied to *another* judge), I would think no reasonable person would >>>>>>> agree with that idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your view. Fair enough. >>>>> >>>>> Other than you, I don't know of anyone's reasonable opinion >>>>> that has ever agreed with the idea that a person, who is *also* >>>>> a member of the bar, and who has sworn to defend, protect and >>>>> uphold the Constitution of the United States, would consider it >>>>> OK to lie under oath in a case he was called in about lying under >>>>> oath. The whole thing is ridiculously dishonest. >>>> >>>> I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied it was "OK" to do so. >>> >>> So you share *my* view, then? >> >> If you are saying we are in basic agreement that is good. > > I'm not saying anything, I'm clearly asking... and you know that. > But you can't answer because of what sits at the top of this post > about *my* standard... that you have just essentially agreed with > (despite having made the statement at the top). > You fantasized about me being OK with people lying under oath. Seriously, is there a name for what is wrong with you? I do not find your lies "OK", nor do I find lying under oath to be "OK". As you know, I value honesty. -- 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 19:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad071f5a-59b5-4997-ad10-724817581bb7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449775 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 8:12:51 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/18 7:03 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 7:31:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 4/30/18 5:50 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:52:22 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>> If you go by Carroll's standard, ANY lie should count... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If you're lying in front of a grand jury *as* the sworn in POTUS > >>>>>>> (especially because you're there due to the fact that you *already* > >>>>>>> lied to *another* judge), I would think no reasonable person would > >>>>>>> agree with that idea. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your view. Fair enough. > >>>>> > >>>>> Other than you, I don't know of anyone's reasonable opinion > >>>>> that has ever agreed with the idea that a person, who is *also* > >>>>> a member of the bar, and who has sworn to defend, protect and > >>>>> uphold the Constitution of the United States, would consider it > >>>>> OK to lie under oath in a case he was called in about lying under > >>>>> oath. The whole thing is ridiculously dishonest. > >>>> > >>>> I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied it was "OK" to do so. > >>> > >>> So you share *my* view, then? > >> > >> If you are saying we are in basic agreement that is good. > > > > I'm not saying anything, I'm clearly asking... and you know that. > > But you can't answer because of what sits at the top of this post > > about *my* standard... that you have just essentially agreed with > > (despite having made the statement at the top). > > > You fantasized about me being OK with people lying under oath. LOL! You're the one arguing against the point I made. You're saying you don't disagree with my view but you won't clarify that you agree as you allege I "fantasized about" you. The only fantasizing here was done by you, with your statement at the top... where you distorted *my* standard to include a context that was outside the scope of what Clinton did. He didn't just tell "ANY lie", he told a perjurious lie that he later admitted to having told.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 19:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkq20lF1huhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449779 |
On 4/30/18 7:29 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >> You fantasized about me being OK with people lying under oath. > > LOL! You're the one arguing against the point I made. I am noting your fantasy that I held that view. STOP living your life fantasizing about me and my views. There is a whole world out there, outside of ANYTHING I am involved with. You have kids... spend time trying to reconcile with them. Don't lose them as you lost your wife over your obsession. I sincerely hope it is not too late for you. Your family has reached out to me to make sure I am safe from your obsession. That is one of the reasons I started talking to you again, on their request. And, no, I shall not go into detail other than to note they reached out to me. You have NOTHING in your life accept an obsession with me. Move on. -- 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 19:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4cbae121-517d-4f69-a72c-508dbd24352c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449782 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 8:34:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/18 7:29 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > >> You fantasized about me being OK with people lying under oath. > > > > LOL! You're the one arguing against the point I made. > > I am noting your fantasy that I held that view. > > STOP living your life fantasizing about me and my views. There is a > whole world out there, outside of ANYTHING I am involved with. You have > kids... spend time trying to reconcile with them. Don't lose them as you > lost your wife over your obsession. I sincerely hope it is not too late > for you. > > Your family has reached out to me to make sure I am safe from your > obsession. That is one of the reasons I started talking to you again, on > their request. And, no, I shall not go into detail other than to note > they reached out to me. > > You have NOTHING in your life accept an obsession with me. Move on. Poor, Snit... the meds have obviously gone "bad" again ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 12:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb8fbec8-c18f-470f-a27e-3ab7baf635a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449675 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 12:27:22 PM UTC-6, Snit 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? What part of... No matter what the topic, it doesn't get any more "significant" than that. ...confused you? > > His "impeachment came from" his lying under oath. > > About an affair. You're missing it, *what* you lied about under oath isn't relevant, what is relevant is *that* you lied. Were this not the case, there'd be no point in taking an oath now, would there? You're essentially arguing that there should be no penalty or that's it's not that big of a deal to lie under oath if the topic isn't one you (the person who is about to lie under oath) consider to be "significant". > If merely lying under oath was enough to justify an impeachment Again, you're confused, lying under oath *was* enough to justify an impeachment. > then Trump would have already been impeached. There's plenty of time. > <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. It didn't. No one twisted Clinton's arm to swear to tell the truth and then not. > >> ... 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. Wouldn't surprise me. > 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. When someone reads: "He was acquitted of all charges", the suggestion is that he did nothing wrong... but you don't pony up what he had to if that's the case. The most bizarre part of this is he was criminally prosecuted, yet, the deal was more along the lines of what you'd expect from a civil case... lifestyles of the rich and famous. Had Clinton chosen to tell the truth everyone could have been spared.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 12:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpaa7Fr8tpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449681 |
On 4/30/18 12:06 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 12:27:22 PM UTC-6, Snit 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? > > What part of... > > No matter what the topic, it doesn't get any more "significant" than that. > > ....confused you? You assume confusion when I state disagreement. >>> His "impeachment came from" his lying under oath. >> >> About an affair. > > You're missing it, *what* you lied about under oath isn't relevant, > what is relevant is *that* you lied. Were this not the case, there'd > be no point in taking an oath now, would there? You're essentially > arguing that there should be no penalty or that's it's not that big > of a deal to lie under oath if the topic isn't one you (the person > who is about to lie under oath) consider to be "significant". I am noting his affair does not and did not mean much to me. Again, we disagree on this and you find it very significant that he had an affair where he lied not just to his wife but to others and in an arena where being dishonest has other legal implications. I get that. But people are generally not charged with perjury unless there is a greater value and meaning to the lie. This was selective enforcement for political reasons. >> If merely lying under oath was enough to justify an impeachment > > Again, you're confused, lying under oath *was* enough to justify an impeachment. Well, sure, it was what was used to justify the efforts to get him out of office. And the efforts failed. >> then Trump would have already been impeached. > > There's plenty of time. Would not surprise me if he was. Nor would it surprise me if Hillary Clinton was if she had won. Both are horrid candidates and deeply immoral people. ... >> He was acquitted of all charges. > > When someone reads: "He was acquitted of all charges", the > suggestion is that he did nothing wrong... but you don't pony up what > he had to if that's the case. The most bizarre part of this is he was > criminally prosecuted, yet, the deal was more along the lines of what > you'd expect from a civil case... lifestyles of the rich and famous. Had > Clinton chosen to tell the truth everyone could have been spared. He certainly did a lot wrong. I do not deny that nor support the immorality of his affair OR other actions toward women. He is not at Trump-level of abuse but he is not far from it. -- 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 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7b7d699-61f0-49a2-91bb-36cf6116adb5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449684 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 1:49:30 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/18 12:06 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 12:27:22 PM UTC-6, Snit 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? > > > > What part of... > > > > No matter what the topic, it doesn't get any more "significant" than that. > > > > ....confused you? > > You assume confusion when I state disagreement. Do you see any point in the taking of an oath? > >>> His "impeachment came from" his lying under oath. > >> > >> About an affair. > > > > You're missing it, *what* you lied about under oath isn't relevant, > > what is relevant is *that* you lied. Were this not the case, there'd > > be no point in taking an oath now, would there? You're essentially > > arguing that there should be no penalty or that's it's not that big > > of a deal to lie under oath if the topic isn't one you (the person > > who is about to lie under oath) consider to be "significant". > > I am noting his affair does not and did not mean much to me. And it didn't mean anything to the grand jury, either <shrug>. > Again, we > disagree on this and you find it very significant that he had an affair I don't find any affair at all significant and have stated as much (even with Trump, which you replied to). If you don't want people to "assume confusion" perhaps you shouldn't appear so confused ;) > where he lied not just to his wife but to others and in an arena where > being dishonest has other legal implications. I get that. Then why do you keep talking about an "affair"? No grand juror cares a whit that he lied to his wife, his pastor or Santa Claus. They do care that he lied to them *and* another judge. Go figure. > But people are generally not charged with perjury unless there is a > greater value and meaning to the lie. This was selective enforcement for > political reasons. Sure, and that explains why the SCOTUS *unanimously* ordered it forward... *during* his presidency <eyeroll>. > >> He was acquitted of all charges. > > > > When someone reads: "He was acquitted of all charges", the > > suggestion is that he did nothing wrong... but you don't pony up what > > he had to if that's the case. The most bizarre part of this is he was > > criminally prosecuted, yet, the deal was more along the lines of what > > you'd expect from a civil case... lifestyles of the rich and famous. Had > > Clinton chosen to tell the truth everyone could have been spared. > > He certainly did a lot wrong. I do not deny that nor support the > immorality of his affair OR other actions toward women. That's between him, his victims and his wife. You keep talking about an "affair", which is an odd way to describe what Clinton has been accused of by several women. I don't believe you'd give Trump the same 'pass'. > He is not at > Trump-level of abuse but he is not far from it. That's opinion at this point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpf67FsbirU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449691 |
On 4/30/18 2:02 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 1:49:30 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 4/30/18 12:06 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 12:27:22 PM UTC-6, Snit 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? >>> >>> What part of... >>> >>> No matter what the topic, it doesn't get any more "significant" than that. >>> >>> ....confused you? >> >> You assume confusion when I state disagreement. > > Do you see any point in the taking of an oath? > >>>>> His "impeachment came from" his lying under oath. >>>> >>>> About an affair. >>> >>> You're missing it, *what* you lied about under oath isn't relevant, >>> what is relevant is *that* you lied. Were this not the case, there'd >>> be no point in taking an oath now, would there? You're essentially >>> arguing that there should be no penalty or that's it's not that big >>> of a deal to lie under oath if the topic isn't one you (the person >>> who is about to lie under oath) consider to be "significant". >> >> I am noting his affair does not and did not mean much to me. > > And it didn't mean anything to the grand jury, either <shrug>. > >> Again, we >> disagree on this and you find it very significant that he had an affair > > I don't find any affair at all significant and have stated as much > (even with Trump, which you replied to). If you don't want people > to "assume confusion" perhaps you shouldn't appear so confused ;) > >> where he lied not just to his wife but to others and in an arena where >> being dishonest has other legal implications. I get that. > > Then why do you keep talking about an "affair"? No grand juror > cares a whit that he lied to his wife, his pastor or Santa Claus. > They do care that he lied to them *and* another judge. Go figure. > >> But people are generally not charged with perjury unless there is a >> greater value and meaning to the lie. This was selective enforcement for >> political reasons. > > Sure, and that explains why the SCOTUS *unanimously* ordered it > forward... *during* his presidency <eyeroll>. > >>>> He was acquitted of all charges. >>> >>> When someone reads: "He was acquitted of all charges", the >>> suggestion is that he did nothing wrong... but you don't pony up what >>> he had to if that's the case. The most bizarre part of this is he was >>> criminally prosecuted, yet, the deal was more along the lines of what >>> you'd expect from a civil case... lifestyles of the rich and famous. Had >>> Clinton chosen to tell the truth everyone could have been spared. >> >> He certainly did a lot wrong. I do not deny that nor support the >> immorality of his affair OR other actions toward women. > > That's between him, his victims and his wife. > > You keep talking about an "affair", which is an odd way to describe > what Clinton has been accused of by several women. I don't believe > you'd give Trump the same 'pass'. > >> He is not at >> Trump-level of abuse but he is not far from it. > > That's opinion at this point. > I talk about the affair because Clinton's impeachment was the topic. An affair is when someone has sex outside of a marriage without their partner's approval, and almost always includes lying about it. It was such a lie (and in a context of greater legal consequence) that Clinton was impeached over. This was, of course, selective enforcement of the law based on a political motive... though there was also reason to believe Clinton engaged in sexual assault and those were never fully adjudicated. -- 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 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad94a238-1b92-428e-8342-687569a381b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449694 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:12:43 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> He is not at > >> Trump-level of abuse but he is not far from it. > > > > That's opinion at this point. > > > > I talk about the affair because Clinton's impeachment was the topic. Again, Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpfv5Fsf2jU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449696 |
On 4/30/18 2:17 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:12:43 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>> He is not at >>>> Trump-level of abuse but he is not far from it. >>> >>> That's opinion at this point. >>> >> >> I talk about the affair because Clinton's impeachment was the topic. > > Again, Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair. > If not for lying about having sex with someone other than his wife (an affair) what do you think the impeachment was about? If you reference that lying as the reason, of course, you are merely backing what I have noted. -- 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 21:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sz1129zb8083.gvau@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449696 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:12:43 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> >> He is not at >> >> Trump-level of abuse but he is not far from it. >> > >> > That's opinion at this point. >> > >> >> I talk about the affair because Clinton's impeachment was the topic. > > Again, Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair. > Was Snit not an adult during that period? How can he be this confused about the Clinton impeachment, which involved not only lying under oath to a grand jury, but also obstruction of justice? It's almost as if he has no first-hand memory of that time, and is getting all his information from left-wing spinmeisters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpg90Fsf2jU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449704 |
On 4/30/18 2:26 PM, owl wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:12:43 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> >>>>> He is not at >>>>> Trump-level of abuse but he is not far from it. >>>> >>>> That's opinion at this point. >>>> >>> >>> I talk about the affair because Clinton's impeachment was the topic. >> >> Again, Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair. >> > > Was Snit not an adult during that period? How can he be this > confused about the Clinton impeachment, which involved not only > lying under oath to a grand jury, but also obstruction of justice? > It's almost as if he has no first-hand memory of that time, and > is getting all his information from left-wing spinmeisters. > What, other than his lies about having sex with someone other than his wife (an affair) do you think the impeachment was 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]
Page 6 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