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 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 23:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <szcv99793ta.hi@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449708 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > 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? > There were two charges: Perjury and Obstruction of justice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 16:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpnf6Fu1v6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449738 |
On 4/30/18 4:16 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> 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? >> > > There were two charges: Perjury and Obstruction of justice. > Correct... the charges were about his affair (and the associated perjury and his pushing for others to lie about it, too). But in my above question I did leave out his pushing others to lie, and I think that was the bigger deal. It seems things went with his affair as they often do in COLA... a small thing grows into a bigger and bigger bit of nonsense as people focus on the meta-debate and then the meta-meta and the comments made in those debates and in the midst of it all the original discussion is lost. Clinton's affair snowballed into his being impeached, in part from his own dishonesty and in part from the politically motivated selective enforcement of the law. -- 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 23:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <azxcb9083g.ay@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449743 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/18 4:16 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> 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? >>> >> >> There were two charges: Perjury and Obstruction of justice. >> > Correct... the charges were about his affair (and the associated perjury > and his pushing for others to lie about it, too). But in my above > question I did leave out his pushing others to lie, and I think that was > the bigger deal. > > It seems things went with his affair as they often do in COLA... a small > thing grows into a bigger and bigger bit of nonsense as people focus on > the meta-debate and then the meta-meta and the comments made in those > debates and in the midst of it all the original discussion is lost. > > Clinton's affair snowballed into his being impeached, in part from his > own dishonesty and in part from the politically motivated selective > enforcement of the law. > Do you have an example of another president who lied to a grand jury and but did not have impeachment proceedings started?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 16:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpobbFu7faU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449745 |
On 4/30/18 4:40 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/30/18 4:16 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> 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? >>>> >>> >>> There were two charges: Perjury and Obstruction of justice. >>> >> Correct... the charges were about his affair (and the associated perjury >> and his pushing for others to lie about it, too). But in my above >> question I did leave out his pushing others to lie, and I think that was >> the bigger deal. >> >> It seems things went with his affair as they often do in COLA... a small >> thing grows into a bigger and bigger bit of nonsense as people focus on >> the meta-debate and then the meta-meta and the comments made in those >> debates and in the midst of it all the original discussion is lost. >> >> Clinton's affair snowballed into his being impeached, in part from his >> own dishonesty and in part from the politically motivated selective >> enforcement of the law. >> > > Do you have an example of another president who lied to a grand jury > and but did not have impeachment proceedings started? > Already quoted Trump lying under oath (either he did not forget what he claimed to, or he lied about having a good memory). You rejected that. But in general, people rarely are charged with perjury. -- 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 23:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <zcv808b.h@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449747 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/18 4:40 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/30/18 4:16 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>> >>>> There were two charges: Perjury and Obstruction of justice. >>>> >>> Correct... the charges were about his affair (and the associated perjury >>> and his pushing for others to lie about it, too). But in my above >>> question I did leave out his pushing others to lie, and I think that was >>> the bigger deal. >>> >>> It seems things went with his affair as they often do in COLA... a small >>> thing grows into a bigger and bigger bit of nonsense as people focus on >>> the meta-debate and then the meta-meta and the comments made in those >>> debates and in the midst of it all the original discussion is lost. >>> >>> Clinton's affair snowballed into his being impeached, in part from his >>> own dishonesty and in part from the politically motivated selective >>> enforcement of the law. >>> >> >> Do you have an example of another president who lied to a grand jury >> and but did not have impeachment proceedings started? >> > Already quoted Trump lying under oath (either he did not forget what he > claimed to, or he lied about having a good memory). You rejected that. > I reject it because one can have a good memory and still forget things. Where was the lie? > But in general, people rarely are charged with perjury. > > In general, presidents rarely testify before a grand jury. But when they do, and they lie, they are impeached.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 17:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c820f6d-df00-4e88-96f7-b6df4a0e81f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449748 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 5:57:22 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > On 4/30/18 4:40 PM, owl wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> On 4/30/18 4:16 PM, owl wrote: > >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>> 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? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> There were two charges: Perjury and Obstruction of justice. > >>>> > >>> Correct... the charges were about his affair (and the associated perjury > >>> and his pushing for others to lie about it, too). But in my above > >>> question I did leave out his pushing others to lie, and I think that was > >>> the bigger deal. > >>> > >>> It seems things went with his affair as they often do in COLA... a small > >>> thing grows into a bigger and bigger bit of nonsense as people focus on > >>> the meta-debate and then the meta-meta and the comments made in those > >>> debates and in the midst of it all the original discussion is lost. > >>> > >>> Clinton's affair snowballed into his being impeached, in part from his > >>> own dishonesty and in part from the politically motivated selective > >>> enforcement of the law. > >>> > >> > >> Do you have an example of another president who lied to a grand jury > >> and but did not have impeachment proceedings started? > >> > > Already quoted Trump lying under oath (either he did not forget what he > > claimed to, or he lied about having a good memory). You rejected that. > > > > I reject it because one can have a good memory and still forget things. > Where was the lie? > > > But in general, people rarely are charged with perjury. > > > > > > In general, presidents rarely testify before a grand jury. But > when they do, and they lie, they are impeached. Exactly... and until Trump gets one of these... <https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-resolution/611/text> ... Snit's just blowing hot air.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 18:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpuedFqujU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449748 |
On 4/30/18 4:57 PM, owl wrote: ... >> Already quoted Trump lying under oath (either he did not forget what he >> claimed to, or he lied about having a good memory). You rejected that. > > I reject it because one can have a good memory and still forget things. > Where was the lie? The ones quoted which you excused and rejected. And will continue to. Of course. >> But in general, people rarely are charged with perjury. > > In general, presidents rarely testify before a grand jury. But > when they do, and they lie, they are impeached. Have any been impeached for such and not been acquitted? -- 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 01:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sazxcv083.ahur@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449765 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/18 4:57 PM, owl wrote: > ... >>> Already quoted Trump lying under oath (either he did not forget what he >>> claimed to, or he lied about having a good memory). You rejected that. >> >> I reject it because one can have a good memory and still forget things. >> Where was the lie? > > The ones quoted which you excused and rejected. And will continue to. Of > course. > >>> But in general, people rarely are charged with perjury. >> >> In general, presidents rarely testify before a grand jury. But >> when they do, and they lie, they are impeached. > > Have any been impeached for such and not been acquitted? > The only two presidents ever impeached were both acquitted, and Clinton's was the only one involving grand jury perjury. If Nixon had been impeached, he probably would have been convicted though. The fact that it takes 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict -- the same as required for amending the Constitution -- means that, accounting for the current political climate, that will never happen, no matter what happens in the mid-terms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 18:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpvqhF1438U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449769 |
On 4/30/18 6:51 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/30/18 4:57 PM, owl wrote: >> ... >>>> Already quoted Trump lying under oath (either he did not forget what he >>>> claimed to, or he lied about having a good memory). You rejected that. >>> >>> I reject it because one can have a good memory and still forget things. >>> Where was the lie? >> >> The ones quoted which you excused and rejected. And will continue to. Of >> course. >> >>>> But in general, people rarely are charged with perjury. >>> >>> In general, presidents rarely testify before a grand jury. But >>> when they do, and they lie, they are impeached. >> >> Have any been impeached for such and not been acquitted? >> > > The only two presidents ever impeached were both acquitted, > and Clinton's was the only one involving grand jury perjury. > If Nixon had been impeached, he probably would have been > convicted though. Right... where we know Clinton was not. > The fact that it takes 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict -- > the same as required for amending the Constitution -- means > that, accounting for the current political climate, that will > never happen, no matter what happens in the mid-terms. It is not likely, but it is possible... though if the Democrats remain as stupid as they were in 2016 it certainly will not happen and we might even get Trump for another four years. The modern DNC is THAT incompetent. -- 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 02:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <saxcv908.huo@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449770 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/18 6:51 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/30/18 4:57 PM, owl wrote: >>> ... >>>>> Already quoted Trump lying under oath (either he did not forget what he >>>>> claimed to, or he lied about having a good memory). You rejected that. >>>> >>>> I reject it because one can have a good memory and still forget things. >>>> Where was the lie? >>> >>> The ones quoted which you excused and rejected. And will continue to. Of >>> course. >>> >>>>> But in general, people rarely are charged with perjury. >>>> >>>> In general, presidents rarely testify before a grand jury. But >>>> when they do, and they lie, they are impeached. >>> >>> Have any been impeached for such and not been acquitted? >>> >> >> The only two presidents ever impeached were both acquitted, >> and Clinton's was the only one involving grand jury perjury. >> If Nixon had been impeached, he probably would have been >> convicted though. > > Right... where we know Clinton was not. > What we know is that Clinton was guilty and the Senate is broken. >> The fact that it takes 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict -- >> the same as required for amending the Constitution -- means >> that, accounting for the current political climate, that will >> never happen, no matter what happens in the mid-terms. > > It is not likely, but it is possible... though if the Democrats remain > as stupid as they were in 2016 it certainly will not happen and we might > even get Trump for another four years. The modern DNC is THAT incompetent. > MAGA.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 19:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkq1q8F1gsrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449774 |
On 4/30/18 7:05 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/30/18 6:51 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/30/18 4:57 PM, owl wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>> Already quoted Trump lying under oath (either he did not forget what he >>>>>> claimed to, or he lied about having a good memory). You rejected that. >>>>> >>>>> I reject it because one can have a good memory and still forget things. >>>>> Where was the lie? >>>> >>>> The ones quoted which you excused and rejected. And will continue to. Of >>>> course. >>>> >>>>>> But in general, people rarely are charged with perjury. >>>>> >>>>> In general, presidents rarely testify before a grand jury. But >>>>> when they do, and they lie, they are impeached. >>>> >>>> Have any been impeached for such and not been acquitted? >>>> >>> >>> The only two presidents ever impeached were both acquitted, >>> and Clinton's was the only one involving grand jury perjury. >>> If Nixon had been impeached, he probably would have been >>> convicted though. >> >> Right... where we know Clinton was not. > > What we know is that Clinton was guilty and the Senate is broken. I agree one can be actually guilty but not legally so, but on this I think it was a politically motivated charge pushed with selective enforcement. Perjury charges are generally not pursued... in this case they were. Over an affair. An affair that should not even have been a focus. >>> The fact that it takes 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict -- >>> the same as required for amending the Constitution -- means >>> that, accounting for the current political climate, that will >>> never happen, no matter what happens in the mid-terms. >> >> It is not likely, but it is possible... though if the Democrats remain >> as stupid as they were in 2016 it certainly will not happen and we might >> even get Trump for another four years. The modern DNC is THAT incompetent. > > MAGA. When do you think it was great? One challenge the two sides have is progressives want equal rights for all, a greater tie between productivity and financial gain, more focus on science and evidence-based policy, and less income redistribution. Those on the right will NEVER agree to such things (and the corporate Democrats are almost as bad). -- 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 02:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <zxvioe793.a3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449781 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/18 7:05 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/30/18 6:51 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 4/30/18 4:57 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>>> Already quoted Trump lying under oath (either he did not forget what he >>>>>>> claimed to, or he lied about having a good memory). You rejected that. >>>>>> >>>>>> I reject it because one can have a good memory and still forget things. >>>>>> Where was the lie? >>>>> >>>>> The ones quoted which you excused and rejected. And will continue to. Of >>>>> course. >>>>> >>>>>>> But in general, people rarely are charged with perjury. >>>>>> >>>>>> In general, presidents rarely testify before a grand jury. But >>>>>> when they do, and they lie, they are impeached. >>>>> >>>>> Have any been impeached for such and not been acquitted? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The only two presidents ever impeached were both acquitted, >>>> and Clinton's was the only one involving grand jury perjury. >>>> If Nixon had been impeached, he probably would have been >>>> convicted though. >>> >>> Right... where we know Clinton was not. >> >> What we know is that Clinton was guilty and the Senate is broken. > > I agree one can be actually guilty but not legally so, but on this I > think it was a politically motivated charge pushed with selective > enforcement. Perjury charges are generally not pursued... in this case > they were. Over an affair. An affair that should not even have been a > focus. > >>>> The fact that it takes 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict -- >>>> the same as required for amending the Constitution -- means >>>> that, accounting for the current political climate, that will >>>> never happen, no matter what happens in the mid-terms. >>> >>> It is not likely, but it is possible... though if the Democrats remain >>> as stupid as they were in 2016 it certainly will not happen and we might >>> even get Trump for another four years. The modern DNC is THAT incompetent. >> >> MAGA. > > When do you think it was great? > 1776. > One challenge the two sides have is progressives want equal rights for > all, a greater tie between productivity and financial gain, more focus > on science and evidence-based policy, and less income redistribution. > Those on the right will NEVER agree to such things (and the corporate > Democrats are almost as bad). > LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 20:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkq58gF25i4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449783 |
On 4/30/18 7:35 PM, owl wrote: ... >>>> It is not likely, but it is possible... though if the Democrats remain >>>> as stupid as they were in 2016 it certainly will not happen and we might >>>> even get Trump for another four years. The modern DNC is THAT incompetent. >>> >>> MAGA. >> >> When do you think it was great? >> > > 1776. Ah, when blacks and women and poor white males had far fewer rights. I think we are a MUCH greater nation now. >> One challenge the two sides have is progressives want equal rights for >> all, a greater tie between productivity and financial gain, more focus >> on science and evidence-based policy, and less income redistribution. >> Those on the right will NEVER agree to such things (and the corporate >> Democrats are almost as bad). >> > > LOL > > -- 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 | 2018-05-01 11:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ed0hed1lbb27l65h0r4s13rp367tlc00l4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449783 |
On Tue, 1 May 2018 02:35:53 +0000 (UTC), owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> trolled: >>> MAGA. >> >> When do you think it was great? >> > >1776. +1 >> One challenge the two sides have is progressives want equal rights for >> all, a greater tie between productivity and financial gain, more focus >> on science and evidence-based policy, and less income redistribution. >> Those on the right will NEVER agree to such things (and the corporate >> Democrats are almost as bad). >> > >LOL All the guy ever seems to write is "liberals want rainbows and lollipops for everyone, conservatives will never agree to that."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 17:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <od3fed9b51b8lpnvvi1vtptup8f1qtn96n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449704 |
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 21:26:25 +0000 (UTC), owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> 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. Clinton _was_ impeached regardless of what Michael Glasser says. <https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/20/us/impeachment-overview-clinton-impeached-he-faces-senate-trial-2d-history-vows-job.html> Apparently, Snit is too stupid to read even his own filthy, leftist rags.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkphdjFsf2jU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449715 |
On 4/30/18 2:44 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 21:26:25 +0000 (UTC), owl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
> 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.
>
> Clinton _was_ impeached regardless of what Michael Glasser says.
Of course he was... over lying about having sexual relations with
someone other than his wife (an affair).
> <https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/20/us/impeachment-overview-clinton-impeached-he-faces-senate-trial-2d-history-vows-job.html>
Yup. Backs EXACTLY what I have been saying:
-----
At 1:22 P.M., the House of Representatives approved, 228 to 206, the
first article of impeachment, accusing Mr. Clinton of perjury for
misleading a Federal grand jury last Aug. 17 about the nature of his
relationship with a White House intern, Monica S. Lewinsky. [Roll
call, page 36.]
...
A second article of impeachment, charging Mr. Clinton with
obstruction of justice, passed on a narrower vote of 221 to 212. It
accused him of inducing others to lie in order to conceal his affair
with Ms. Lewinsky. This time 12 Republicans voted no, while 5
Democrats voted yes.
-----
> Apparently, Snit is too stupid to read even his own filthy, leftist
> rags.
LOL! I love how you "prove" I am wrong by giving sources which back me. :)
--
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 15:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a394925d-b00b-4a96-883b-57a82228e6fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449718 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:50:46 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/18 2:44 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 21:26:25 +0000 (UTC), owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> > > 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. > > > > Clinton _was_ impeached regardless of what Michael Glasser says. > > Of course he was... over lying about having sexual relations with > someone other than his wife (an affair). > > > <https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/20/us/impeachment-overview-clinton-impeached-he-faces-senate-trial-2d-history-vows-job.html> > > Yup. Backs EXACTLY what I have been saying: LOL! No, Snit... the charge is: "perjury". Hint: "lying" is *not* perjury. You're seriously confused ;) > ----- > At 1:22 P.M., the House of Representatives approved, 228 to 206, the > first article of impeachment, accusing Mr. Clinton of perjury for > misleading a Federal grand jury last Aug. 17 about the nature of his > relationship with a White House intern, Monica S. Lewinsky. [Roll > call, page 36.] > ... > A second article of impeachment, charging Mr. Clinton with > obstruction of justice, passed on a narrower vote of 221 to 212. It > accused him of inducing others to lie in order to conceal his affair > with Ms. Lewinsky. This time 12 Republicans voted no, while 5 > Democrats voted yes. > ----- > > > Apparently, Snit is too stupid to read even his own filthy, leftist > > rags. > > LOL! I love how you "prove" I am wrong by giving sources which back me. :) All you 'proved' here is that you don't know the difference between lying and perjury.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 15:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpikhFt0f1U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449723 |
On 4/30/18 3:06 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ...>> Yup. Backs EXACTLY what I have been saying: > > LOL! No, Snit... the charge is: "perjury". > > Hint: "lying" is *not* perjury. Not all lying is perjury, but what perjury is not lying? ... >> ----- >> At 1:22 P.M., the House of Representatives approved, 228 to 206, the >> first article of impeachment, accusing Mr. Clinton of perjury for >> misleading a Federal grand jury last Aug. 17 about the nature of his >> relationship with a White House intern, Monica S. Lewinsky. [Roll >> call, page 36.] >> ... >> A second article of impeachment, charging Mr. Clinton with >> obstruction of justice, passed on a narrower vote of 221 to 212. It >> accused him of inducing others to lie in order to conceal his affair >> with Ms. Lewinsky. This time 12 Republicans voted no, while 5 >> Democrats voted yes. >> ----- >> >>> Apparently, Snit is too stupid to read even his own filthy, leftist >>> rags. >> >> LOL! I love how you "prove" I am wrong by giving sources which back me. :) > > All you 'proved' here is that you don't know the difference between > lying and perjury. I think perjury is the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation. Lying, of course, is the same thing but outside of a court context. What about you? -- 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 15:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dfa7d56f-e96b-4c5d-a266-42d2d037d4fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449725 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 4:11:31 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/18 3:06 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ...>> Yup. Backs EXACTLY what I have been saying: > > > > LOL! No, Snit... the charge is: "perjury". > > > > Hint: "lying" is *not* perjury. > > Not all lying is perjury, but what perjury is not lying? > > ... > >> ----- > >> At 1:22 P.M., the House of Representatives approved, 228 to 206, the > >> first article of impeachment, accusing Mr. Clinton of perjury for > >> misleading a Federal grand jury last Aug. 17 about the nature of his > >> relationship with a White House intern, Monica S. Lewinsky. [Roll > >> call, page 36.] > >> ... > >> A second article of impeachment, charging Mr. Clinton with > >> obstruction of justice, passed on a narrower vote of 221 to 212. It > >> accused him of inducing others to lie in order to conceal his affair > >> with Ms. Lewinsky. This time 12 Republicans voted no, while 5 > >> Democrats voted yes. > >> ----- > >> > >>> Apparently, Snit is too stupid to read even his own filthy, leftist > >>> rags. > >> > >> LOL! I love how you "prove" I am wrong by giving sources which back me. :) > > > > All you 'proved' here is that you don't know the difference between > > lying and perjury. > > I think perjury is the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a > court after having taken an oath or affirmation. Lying, of course, is > the same thing but outside of a court context. Why did you just write to Slimer that your "evidence" here "Backs EXACTLY what [you] have been saying" when you never said Clinton was charged with perjury? If we go by your 'evidence yardstick', as used on Trump, you must be "lying" here, right? All along the language from you was "lie", "lying and "affair" when in direct reference to Clinton, never "perjury". In fact, that I see, you only used that word once, to point out how "people are generally not charged with" it. > What about you? As the guy who made the distinction my position is evident.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 03:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pc8mma$5a1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #449623 |
On 2018-04-30, 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. Yeah, and the "mainstream press" continually told us it was "none of our business." What happened to THAT "mainstream press?" Looks like it depends on whose ox is getting gored. -- The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 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