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 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36b7c7b2-2f4c-411d-9acf-f31439461523@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449697 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:19:05 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 2:57:06 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> > On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: > >> >>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has > >> >>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing > >> >>>> that has not happened. > >> >>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. > >> >>> > >> >>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> > >> >>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his > >> >>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... > >> >>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to > >> >>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real > >> >>> candidate in 2020). > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't > >> >> make the answers lies. > >> > > >> > The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? > >> > > >> > >> Because that was their so-called proof of his lies under oath. > >> > >> >> Do you have some*proof* of lies? > >> > > >> > The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of > >> > his dishonesty. :) > >> > > >> > >> Do you have proof of him lying under oath? You sure posted a bunch of > >> links that supposedly show that, but not one of does. > > > > Don't tell me you actually went on that fishing expedition of his?! > > If Snit had a quote, he'd quote it... you know this. > > Yeah. He made some wild claims, with links that supposedly backed > those claims. So I thought I'd take a look. Oh dear. No prize. He may even believe what he says, who knows... the guy thinks Clinton was impeached for having an affair. You can show him mounds of proof that wasn't the case, he still believes it. He claims it was entirely driven by political motive (not that there wasn't any, there always is) yet, the facts show the SCOTUS unanimously moved it forward. Snit is just not that interested in reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpgd6Fsf2jU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449700 |
On 4/30/18 2:24 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> Don't tell me you actually went on that fishing expedition of his?! >>> If Snit had a quote, he'd quote it... you know this. >> Yeah. He made some wild claims, with links that supposedly backed >> those claims. So I thought I'd take a look. Oh dear. No prize. > He may even believe what he says, who knows... the guy thinks Clinton > was impeached for having an affair. You can show him mounds of proof > that wasn't the case, he still believes it. He claims it was entirely driven > by political motive (not that there wasn't any, there always is) yet, the > facts show the SCOTUS unanimously moved it forward. Snit is just not > that interested in reality. It is a matter of public record that Clinton was impeached for lying about having sexual relations with someone other than his wife (an affair). To deny this takes some pretty strong word twisting. But you are now arguing just to argue... and insulting just to feel better about yourself as you push meta-debates and work to twist words. Have fun! In all seriousness, if you want to get back to talking tech I will listen... but this nonsense is of no interest to me. I have a bad habit of letting you and others pull me into such idiocy... hopefully I shall break the habit in this case. :) -- 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 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d9261533-688d-4674-84ec-26deee2eee6b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449709 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:33:29 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/18 2:24 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> Don't tell me you actually went on that fishing expedition of his?! > >>> If Snit had a quote, he'd quote it... you know this. > > >> Yeah. He made some wild claims, with links that supposedly backed > >> those claims. So I thought I'd take a look. Oh dear. No prize. > > > He may even believe what he says, who knows... the guy thinks Clinton > > was impeached for having an affair. You can show him mounds of proof > > that wasn't the case, he still believes it. He claims it was entirely driven > > by political motive (not that there wasn't any, there always is) yet, the > > facts show the SCOTUS unanimously moved it forward. Snit is just not > > that interested in reality. > > It is a matter of public record that Clinton was impeached for lying > about having sexual relations with someone other than his wife (an affair). That just covers the perjury part, abuse of power is a whole other thing, (as is obstruction of justice). You're trying to play it off like all he did was say (lie) "no" when asked if he had sex with ML... he did more than that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 15:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpi8mFt0f1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449720 |
On 4/30/18 2:55 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:33:29 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 4/30/18 2:24 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> Don't tell me you actually went on that fishing expedition of his?! >>>>> If Snit had a quote, he'd quote it... you know this. >> >>>> Yeah. He made some wild claims, with links that supposedly backed >>>> those claims. So I thought I'd take a look. Oh dear. No prize. >> >>> He may even believe what he says, who knows... the guy thinks Clinton >>> was impeached for having an affair. You can show him mounds of proof >>> that wasn't the case, he still believes it. He claims it was entirely driven >>> by political motive (not that there wasn't any, there always is) yet, the >>> facts show the SCOTUS unanimously moved it forward. Snit is just not >>> that interested in reality. >> >> It is a matter of public record that Clinton was impeached for lying >> about having sexual relations with someone other than his wife (an affair). > > That just covers the perjury part, abuse of power is a whole other thing, > (as is obstruction of justice). You're trying to play it off like all he did was > say (lie) "no" when asked if he had sex with ML... he did more than that. He did more than lie about his sexual relations with someone other than his wife, he pushed others to do the same... and that was the bigger issue. I can see that. But this was all over his affair... something which the Republicans should not have even gone after him over. It would be like the Democrats going after Trump for the lies I quoted him saying under oath... not saying they will not, but it would be absurd for them to do so. I refuse to play politics and hold one "side" to different standards. But you disagree with me. I am fine with that. Not sure why this is continuing (and yet here I am, replying). We disagree. I am OK with that. I shall not attack you nor insult you over us disagreeing. I shall not call you names nor mock you. We simply disagree. Can we leave it at that and 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 15:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d868252-8910-4840-bebb-474702e76aa3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449722 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 4:05:13 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/18 2:55 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:33:29 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 4/30/18 2:24 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>> Don't tell me you actually went on that fishing expedition of his?! > >>>>> If Snit had a quote, he'd quote it... you know this. > >> > >>>> Yeah. He made some wild claims, with links that supposedly backed > >>>> those claims. So I thought I'd take a look. Oh dear. No prize. > >> > >>> He may even believe what he says, who knows... the guy thinks Clinton > >>> was impeached for having an affair. You can show him mounds of proof > >>> that wasn't the case, he still believes it. He claims it was entirely driven > >>> by political motive (not that there wasn't any, there always is) yet, the > >>> facts show the SCOTUS unanimously moved it forward. Snit is just not > >>> that interested in reality. > >> > >> It is a matter of public record that Clinton was impeached for lying > >> about having sexual relations with someone other than his wife (an affair). > > > > That just covers the perjury part, abuse of power is a whole other thing, > > (as is obstruction of justice). You're trying to play it off like all he did was > > say (lie) "no" when asked if he had sex with ML... he did more than that. > > He did more than lie about his sexual relations with someone other than > his wife, he pushed others to do the same... and that was the bigger > issue. I can see that. The lying isn't the issue, it's *where* he did the lying that is. > But this was all over his affair... So what? Perjury is still perjury. > something which the Republicans ... you forgot the SCOTUS, who were *unanimous* in their decision. > should not have even gone after him over. I thought you were the guy who believes people are responsible for their own actions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpg7bFsf2jU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449697 |
On 4/30/18 2:19 PM, owl wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 2:57:06 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has >>>>>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing >>>>>>> that has not happened. >>>>>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> >>>>>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his >>>>>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... >>>>>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to >>>>>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real >>>>>> candidate in 2020). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't >>>>> make the answers lies. >>>> >>>> The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? >>>> >>> >>> Because that was their so-called proof of his lies under oath. >>> >>>>> Do you have some*proof* of lies? >>>> >>>> The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of >>>> his dishonesty. :) >>>> >>> >>> Do you have proof of him lying under oath? You sure posted a bunch of >>> links that supposedly show that, but not one of does. >> >> Don't tell me you actually went on that fishing expedition of his?! >> If Snit had a quote, he'd quote it... you know this. > > Yeah. He made some wild claims, with links that supposedly backed > those claims. So I thought I'd take a look. Oh dear. No prize. > Your acceptance or rejection of the proof does not weaken the proof in any way. -- 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 | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 18:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c52c252e-d130-489b-8c54-a52f6081e763@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449707 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 2:30:22 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/18 2:19 PM, owl wrote: > > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 2:57:06 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>> On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: > >>>>>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has > >>>>>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing > >>>>>>> that has not happened. > >>>>>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> > >>>>>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his > >>>>>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... > >>>>>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to > >>>>>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real > >>>>>> candidate in 2020). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't > >>>>> make the answers lies. > >>>> > >>>> The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Because that was their so-called proof of his lies under oath. > >>> > >>>>> Do you have some*proof* of lies? > >>>> > >>>> The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of > >>>> his dishonesty. :) > >>>> > >>> > >>> Do you have proof of him lying under oath? You sure posted a bunch of > >>> links that supposedly show that, but not one of does. > >> > >> Don't tell me you actually went on that fishing expedition of his?! > >> If Snit had a quote, he'd quote it... you know this. > > > > Yeah. He made some wild claims, with links that supposedly backed > > those claims. So I thought I'd take a look. Oh dear. No prize. > > > > Your acceptance or rejection of the proof does not weaken the proof in > any way. > > -- > 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> I bet Jessica Lane does not even know what is wrong with Trump. So he changed his story to responding to him. You _do_ realize that the massive floods ending up in multiple groups started out as a joke about hacking Google. The one thing Jessica Lane learned fully is to try to humiliate Jonathan Rhodes into false confession and if that does not work, flood the thread or completely change the argument. The herd members value the LCD in all things. At times, a make believe world is more valuable than faithful descriptions of reality. Yup. Clearly this is what we have to face. Jerks who obviously have no reason for being here other than to antagonize others. -- Live on Kickstarter http://www.5z8.info/horse-slaughter_w8c4en_launchexe Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c4f3070-c665-43f0-bccb-63f2bde50d7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449692 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 2:05:39 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 2:57:06 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > > On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote:
> > >>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has
> > >>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing
> > >>>> that has not happened.
> > >>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more.
> > >>>
> > >>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430>
> > >>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his
> > >>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power...
> > >>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to
> > >>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real
> > >>> candidate in 2020).
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't
> > >> make the answers lies.
> > >
> > > The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up?
> > >
> >
> > Because that was their so-called proof of his lies under oath.
> >
> > >> Do you have some*proof* of lies?
> > >
> > > The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of
> > > his dishonesty. :)
> > >
> >
> > Do you have proof of him lying under oath? You sure posted a bunch of
> > links that supposedly show that, but not one of does.
>
> Don't tell me you actually went on that fishing expedition of his?!
> If Snit had a quote, he'd quote it... you know this.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 4:04 PM:
-----
Cute trick... To the guy who hacked my Google account.
-----
No details. Seems to treat it as a joke.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:02 PM, <https://goo.gl/51rsmZ>:
-----
Email Hacking Is A Serious Crime
-----
No longer "cute"... now it is a serious crime. OK.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:07 PM:
By now he is posting more links to how serious this crime against him is.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 7:25 PM:
-----
I didn't write that.
-----
Now he is denying the posts from his own account. OK, he was "hacked". Someone else posted this. Hard to hack a gmail account given how they use two-step authentication and someone would need access to his phone or the like... but at least POSSIBLE.
Even then, though, if someone tries to guess your password Google alerts you and lets you know what IP address and other info. I know because someone in a Denver internet cafe has tried mine on several occasions.
Google even forces you to change your password when this happens. Very hard to hack these days.
So already Carroll's story is unlikely.
But let us accept it... someone somehow hacked his account bypassing the two step verification. This person did not, however, change his password and Carroll posted within an hour of the "hacker". Before that, unless he is an idiot, he changed his password and the "hacker" was locked out. The "hacker" got one post in.
But Carroll could not leave his story there.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM, <https://goo.gl/NJ2bMH>:
-----
Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being,
don't trust anything from it.
-----
Wait. What? Even after Carroll figured out this "hacker" who was too stupid to change his password had broken into his account and Carroll *surely* must have changed his own password, he is saying the "hacker" might still have access. Might be able to break Google's two-step verification process *again*.
This is *very* unlikely... to the point of being unbelievable.
Even worse for him: he notes which of his accounts he is claiming was hacked - but in the past he has denied even using the other accounts! LOL! He screwed up and made it very clear he has multiple accounts and felt the need to note which one. He made the same mistake in the next quote where he speaks of WHICH of his gmail accounts he is claiming was hacked. Oops! If he only posts with one there would be no need to specify which one!
He has completely screwed up in his game to pretend he posts with only one gmail account. Completely idiotic of him, too!
Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM, <https://goo.gl/YA7gMO>:
-----
Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account
so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume
anything that's coming from it was written by me.
-----
He is still saying that he may have to kill the account instead of just changing the password which anyone with half a brain would have already done (and Google *forces* you to do when someone even tries to hack your account... I know because someone in the Denver area has tried to hack mine multiple times... likely Carroll but I have no proof of this). And he specifies WHICH of his accounts! He is directly admitting he uses more than one account! His claim of being "forged" with his second account is a lie. Proved.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:40 PM, <https://goo.gl/j6yCuV>:
-----
Looks like it's still being hacked despite me taking precautions,
I may have to kill the account.
-----
What makes it look like its still being hacked? And what precautions other than changing the two-step verification options does he need? And how would someone bypass this... is he really on the NSA watch list? Seems you would need someone at that level to be doing this. He watches too much TV where they computer hackers spend thirty seconds and bypass all security.
Just nonsense.
Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:05 PM:
-----
Apparently Google is having issues with their accounts to the
point where they're ready to undertake some additional measures.
-----
But, of course, no evidence of this... and what measures? They already alert users if someone else tries to guess your password and use two-step authentication and even force you to make a new password if it seems someone is trying to hack you.
-----
They're now involving several federal agencies in things they
didn't bother with previously in an effort to deal with people who
hack into accounts. They've asked me to leave the account open.
-----
So now Google is letting Carroll know how they are handling these things - and asking him to leave a *hacked* account open... one someone can be using to steal his identity. No. This does not pass the sniff test in any way. Even if they were doing this for some bizarre sting operation, which is in itself far fetched, they would have told Carroll to not make it public information so the hacker would not know.
Just insanity. His own story is so idiotic and full of idiotic claims it simply cannot be true. Carroll uses his secondary Google account - the one he accesses via Tor and is referred to as his Tor account - to have plausible deniability for things he says there. Now he is working to do the same thing with his main account. Maybe Carroll read a report like this: <http://cnnmon.ie/111QeT8> [money.com]. If so he missed the part where they note if you are *really* hacked, which is rare, the hackers change your password and lock you out. Why would they not?
-----
There's some new legislation that will help them deal with this
issue... which probably means more BS for us ;)
-----
Yes, new legislation to make sure Carroll does not have to deal with "hackers" and "forgers" which do not even exist.
The funny part is, this happened shortly after someone in the Denver area, likely Carroll, tried to guess *my* passwords and they did it from an Internet café (Google tells you the IP and that can be used to trace back).
My guess: Carroll is the one who was working to guess my password and figured this new lie of his was a good way to deny his own words even more than he does with his Tor account *and* a way to make it so if I had talked about him trying to hack my account he could say I was just copying his comments. "Proving" I read his posts... which for now I am to see how absurd his lies are. :)
Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:25 PM:
-----
The person who hacked into my Gmail acct. changed the wording on
this post. I've removed the others but Google asked me to leave
one standing for some odd reason.
-----
Here Carroll claims the hacker changed the wording on a post of his from *before* he had even claimed he was hacked. So this hacker not only can *post* for him but edit his old Usenet posts.
I call utter bullshit on this. Out and out lie from Carroll. And then Carroll says Google asked him to not delete these "hacked" posts... this is nonsense. Why would Google want him to leave forged posts in the public and why would Google not just keep their own copy? Even Carroll notes it is for "some odd reason" - yeah, because Carroll is telling stories that make *no* sense at all.
Carroll is lying. Maybe there is some kernel of truth to his stories? Even if so - and frankly it is unlikely he will ever show any evidence to back his claims - the details he is posting are absurd.
Carroll, 4/11/2015 2:10 PM:
-----
And he's so high he thinks people still have to manually enter all
their passwords in whenever they want to use anything that's been
password protected ;)
-----
Nobody had suggested, hinted, implied, or said anything like what Carroll says they did.
Maybe his story will be someone stole his laptop (or mobile device) and he had his passwords saved? If so why not have the device deactivated remotely? Why has he not said anything about this?
My guess: he realizes he screwed up when trying to guess my passwords and is now building a story so he can say his computer was stolen and it was not him. Or, LOL, maybe someone broke into his house and did it.
This unknown hacker knew he was obsessed with me and carried on acting like him. Makes complete sense, eh?
Carroll, 4/12/2015 8:45 AM, <https://goo.gl/KMf4pa>:
-----
The first one, that has since been deleted. My bad for having such
a feeble password on this account.
-----
Now he suggests it was merely from someone guessing his password - which contradicts his above insinuations that it could have been from a saved password on a device he had.
His story changes with the telling.
But as noted, when someone tries to guess your password Google has ways to deal with it. I know - Carroll or someone in his neck of the woods recently tried it with me.
Carroll, 4/12/2015 9:29 AM:
-----
The account in question here is a gmail account. Contrary to
Snit's delusions, I have no idea what a TOR account looks like but
it's a good bet it doesn't bear much of a resemblance to a gmail
account.
-----
Here Carroll plays stupid and pretends that if when he or anyone uses the Tor browser *Carroll* pointed to this somehow changes the way the gmail interface looks. Um, no. Worse it might do is make Google think you are in another country and you would have to set it back to English. But the basic look stays the same.
He is playing stupid and pretending to not know how the Tor browser he pointed to works. Just idiotic of him.
-----
That idiocy aside, I love how Snit has repeatedly, for years,
feigned ignorance about gmail accounts, yet, he keeps disclosing
info that proves he knows about them. Some fools do stuff like
this when they believe people are as stupid as the fool needs them
to be ;)
-----
I do not think Google would allow you to edit your Usenet / groups posts but I do not use it much and do not know for sure. Seems absurd that they would... and others have now said they do not. But given how I do not use Google Groups for posting why would I know the details of their system for certain?
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:47 PM:
-----
Your obsession with me is insane. Working with Google I now have
proof you and ebot worked together to hack me. Clever. If I press
charges against you I have to also include her so you remain safe
for now.
Do not think this is over.
-----
No evidence of working with Google on this (and all out and out lies). Carroll is making public threats based on lies.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:50 PM:
-----
I promised COLA your trolling days were over so you contacted ebot
and worked with her to hack my account. I might not be able to get
your ass handed to you in court over this but wait until your boss
at Yavapai College contacts you.
Maybe you should make that call first. Ask about your comments on
incest.
See if those can not be quoted.
-----
Direct lies and threats by Carroll.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:51 PM:
-----
You went too far this time Snit. We have trolled each other for
years but to contact ebot and get her to help you hack my account
was over a line.
-----
A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:52 PM:
-----
The above post is Snit hacking my account.
-----
A complete and utter lie... more false accusations from him.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:53 PM:
-----
You edited those posts when you hacked my account. Do not trust
anything from my fretwizzer account now that Snit and ebot have
access to it.
-----
More unsupported claims and attacks by Carroll.
Carroll, 4/16/2015 8:56 PM:
-----
Working with Google I now have proof Snit and ebot hacked the
account. Many of the older posts were edited. You can see evidence
of this by Snit pointing to "old" posts which have been modified to
say I claimed I was his "personal newsgroup rapist", a phrase I
have never used.
-----
No evidence of Carroll working with Google. No evidence of any older posts being edited.
--
One Smart Penny
https://redd.it/6sfkup
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpfmsFsf2jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449689 |
On 4/30/18 1:57 PM, owl wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has
>>>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing
>>>>> that has not happened.
>>>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430>
>>>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his
>>>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power...
>>>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to
>>>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real
>>>> candidate in 2020).
>>>>
>>>>
>>> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't
>>> make the answers lies.
>>
>> The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up?
>
> Because that was their so-called proof of his lies under oath.
Can you offer a quote of someone saying their not liking what he said
was proof of lying? What does that even
>>> Do you have some*proof* of lies?
>>
>> The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of
>> his dishonesty. :)
>
> Do you have proof of him lying under oath? You sure posted a bunch of
> links that supposedly show that, but not one of does.
This quote about his net worth is clearly a lie (or he is insane):
-----
My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and
with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings. But I try.
-----
It is a lie to say your net worth fluctuates with your feelings.
Also, ironically and humorously, when being questioned about his claims
of a great memory Trump said more than two dozen times that he did not
remember his own words. By his own testimony of having a great memory
that should be seen as a lie. Or he lied about having a great memory.
...
>> But what has Trump ever been honest about? :)
>
> Under oath? Everything.
I would LOVE to see support for that!
--
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 21:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <zv83ag.ahu43@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449698 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/18 1:57 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: >>>>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has >>>>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing >>>>>> that has not happened. >>>>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> >>>>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his >>>>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... >>>>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to >>>>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real >>>>> candidate in 2020). >>>>> >>>>> >>>> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't >>>> make the answers lies. >>> >>> The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? >> >> Because that was their so-called proof of his lies under oath. > > Can you offer a quote of someone saying their not liking what he said > was proof of lying? What does that even > They, or at least the reporters, were not satisfied with his answers when he truthfully quoted legal documents that explained what they were asking about. >>>> Do you have some*proof* of lies? >>> >>> The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of >>> his dishonesty. :) >> >> Do you have proof of him lying under oath? You sure posted a bunch of >> links that supposedly show that, but not one of does. > > This quote about his net worth is clearly a lie (or he is insane): > ----- > My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and > with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings. But I try. > ----- > Many super-wealthy people have know idea how much wealth they have. > It is a lie to say your net worth fluctuates with your feelings. > No it's not. If he assesses a property to be of a certain value in his mind, that's is part of his picture of his net worth. And that is not a silly way to look at it. No one can say for sure what a property is actually worth on the market until it is sold. Even then, a potential buyer who might have been willing to pay more could have been missed. So, if Trump is not feeling very happy with a particular property, he might determine that his net worth has fallen. > Also, ironically and humorously, when being questioned about his claims > of a great memory Trump said more than two dozen times that he did not > remember his own words. By his own testimony of having a great memory > that should be seen as a lie. Or he lied about having a great memory. > Did he say under oath that he had a great memory, and then say later under oath that he did not have a great memory? And having a great memory does not mean that you never forget anything. > ... >>> But what has Trump ever been honest about? :) >> >> Under oath? Everything. > > I would LOVE to see support for that! > You made the claim that he has lied under oath. Prove it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpgvkFsf2jU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449710 |
On 4/30/18 2:37 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/30/18 1:57 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has >>>>>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing >>>>>>> that has not happened. >>>>>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> >>>>>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his >>>>>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... >>>>>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to >>>>>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real >>>>>> candidate in 2020). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't >>>>> make the answers lies. >>>> >>>> The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? >>> >>> Because that was their so-called proof of his lies under oath. >> >> Can you offer a quote of someone saying their not liking what he said >> was proof of lying? What does that even > > They, or at least the reporters, were not satisfied with his answers > when he truthfully quoted legal documents that explained what they > were asking about. Do you have a quote of someone saying what you attribute to them? >>>>> Do you have some*proof* of lies? >>>> >>>> The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of >>>> his dishonesty. :) >>> >>> Do you have proof of him lying under oath? You sure posted a bunch of >>> links that supposedly show that, but not one of does. >> >> This quote about his net worth is clearly a lie (or he is insane): >> ----- >> My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and >> with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings. But I try. >> ----- > > Many super-wealthy people have know idea how much wealth they have. Irrelevant to the fact it is a lie to say one's feelings change one's net worth. >> It is a lie to say your net worth fluctuates with your feelings. > > No it's not. If he assesses a property to be of a certain value > in his mind, that's is part of his picture of his net worth. And > that is not a silly way to look at it. No one can say for sure > what a property is actually worth on the market until it is sold. > Even then, a potential buyer who might have been willing to pay > more could have been missed. So, if Trump is not feeling very > happy with a particular property, he might determine that his > net worth has fallen. Net worth is not a feeling. <http://smallbusiness.chron.com/definition-net-worth-accounting-24909.html> OR <https://goo.gl/gdy6L7> >> Also, ironically and humorously, when being questioned about his claims >> of a great memory Trump said more than two dozen times that he did not >> remember his own words. By his own testimony of having a great memory >> that should be seen as a lie. Or he lied about having a great memory. > > Did he say under oath that he had a great memory, and then say later > under oath that he did not have a great memory? And having a great > memory does not mean that you never forget anything. He said he had a great memory and then, over a dozen times, said he could not recall what he had said about his great memory. At the very least it is ironic... and takes some weird twisting to call that honest. But it is also not a lie that has any real impact on anything... I would say to go after him on that would be selective enforcement based on politics. I do not back that. >> ... >>>> But what has Trump ever been honest about? :) >>> >>> Under oath? Everything. >> >> I would LOVE to see support for that! > > You made the claim that he has lied under oath. Prove it. So you are moving goal posts from your claim here. Fair enough -- you cannot back it in any way. -- 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 23:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <szv0zb803.ahy@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449714 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/18 2:37 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/30/18 1:57 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has >>>>>>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing >>>>>>>> that has not happened. >>>>>>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> >>>>>>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his >>>>>>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... >>>>>>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to >>>>>>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real >>>>>>> candidate in 2020). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't >>>>>> make the answers lies. >>>>> >>>>> The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? >>>> >>>> Because that was their so-called proof of his lies under oath. >>> >>> Can you offer a quote of someone saying their not liking what he said >>> was proof of lying? What does that even >> >> They, or at least the reporters, were not satisfied with his answers >> when he truthfully quoted legal documents that explained what they >> were asking about. > > Do you have a quote of someone saying what you attribute to them? > In your link here, for instance: http://www.newsweek.com/mr-speaker-stop-trump-let-gop-lose-election-489797 <quote> [They don't like what he said:] What is most disturbing in Trump’s sworn statements is the amount of nonsense he spouts as he mangles the English language into meanings no rational person could accept. An unsuccessful “development by Donald Trump” is not a “development by Donald Trump.” ... [The truth that he spoke that is supposedly a lie:] When the advertising says the building is a development by Donald Trump, “in some cases they’re developed by me and in some cases they’re not.” He never explained how “developed by Trump” can mean “not developed by Trump” but pointed out that the lengthy legal documents signed by those unfortunate buyers disclosed in the fine print that he was not the builder. </quote> Now it's your turn to post a quote of him lying under oath. >>>>>> Do you have some*proof* of lies? >>>>> >>>>> The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of >>>>> his dishonesty. :) >>>> >>>> Do you have proof of him lying under oath? You sure posted a bunch of >>>> links that supposedly show that, but not one of does. >>> >>> This quote about his net worth is clearly a lie (or he is insane): >>> ----- >>> My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and >>> with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings. But I try. >>> ----- >> >> Many super-wealthy people have know idea how much wealth they have. > > Irrelevant to the fact it is a lie to say one's feelings change one's > net worth. > It is not a lie. His assessment of his net worth can change, just as someone else's assessment of his net worth can change. Valuing property is subjective. Or do you really think that your house's value is fixed in stone? >>> It is a lie to say your net worth fluctuates with your feelings. >> >> No it's not. If he assesses a property to be of a certain value >> in his mind, that's is part of his picture of his net worth. And >> that is not a silly way to look at it. No one can say for sure >> what a property is actually worth on the market until it is sold. >> Even then, a potential buyer who might have been willing to pay >> more could have been missed. So, if Trump is not feeling very >> happy with a particular property, he might determine that his >> net worth has fallen. > > Net worth is not a feeling. > See above. > <http://smallbusiness.chron.com/definition-net-worth-accounting-24909.html> > OR <https://goo.gl/gdy6L7> > Real property is an asset, but its value can only be estimated. >>> Also, ironically and humorously, when being questioned about his claims >>> of a great memory Trump said more than two dozen times that he did not >>> remember his own words. By his own testimony of having a great memory >>> that should be seen as a lie. Or he lied about having a great memory. >> >> Did he say under oath that he had a great memory, and then say later >> under oath that he did not have a great memory? And having a great >> memory does not mean that you never forget anything. > > He said he had a great memory and then, over a dozen times, said he > could not recall what he had said about his great memory. > So? > At the very least it is ironic... and takes some weird twisting to call > that honest. > Irony is not perjury. > But it is also not a lie that has any real impact on anything... I would > say to go after him on that would be selective enforcement based on > politics. I do not back that. > I would say if he lied under oath, go after him. >>> ... >>>>> But what has Trump ever been honest about? :) >>>> >>>> Under oath? Everything. >>> >>> I would LOVE to see support for that! >> >> You made the claim that he has lied under oath. Prove it. > > So you are moving goal posts from your claim here. Fair enough -- you > cannot back it in any way. > Nope. The whole point of your posting of those links was to supposedly show Trump having a history of lying under oath, and to equate those with Clinton's perjury.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 17:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <aa3fedp16miu2if8e2p68asocehqb86qts@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449689 |
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:57:04 +0000 (UTC), owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: >>>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has >>>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing >>>>> that has not happened. >>>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. >>>> >>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> >>>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his >>>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... >>>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to >>>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real >>>> candidate in 2020). >>>> >>>> >>> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't >>> make the answers lies. >> >> The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? >> > >Because that was their so-called proof of his lies under oath. > >>> Do you have some*proof* of lies? >> >> The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of >> his dishonesty. :) >> > >Do you have proof of him lying under oath? You sure posted a bunch of >links that supposedly show that, but not one of does. I will bet anything that Snit's evidence that Trump lied is going to be some article by a liberal "news" agency which simply claims that something is a lie without actually demonstrating _how_ it's a lie and despite all evidence that it is the truth. >>> One or your >>> ridiculous links has Trump asked if he had thought much over a period >>> of time about running for politics. He said no. That is supposedly >>> one of the examples of him "lying under oath." LOL! >> >> He has considered it since at least 1987, and spoke of it publicly. If >> you go by Carroll's standard, ANY lie should count... but, sure, I would >> say going after him for that would be idiotic. >> >> But what has Trump ever been honest about? :) > >Under oath? Everything. Reading Snit is like watching Rachel Maddow except Maddow is a lot more masculine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkph2lFsf2jU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449713 |
On 4/30/18 2:41 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote: ... >>> The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of >>> his dishonesty. :) >>> >> >> Do you have proof of him lying under oath? You sure posted a bunch of >> links that supposedly show that, but not one of does. > > I will bet anything that Snit's evidence that Trump lied is going to > be some article by a liberal "news" agency which simply claims that > something is a lie without actually demonstrating _how_ it's a lie and > despite all evidence that it is the truth. Given how I have already provided direct quotes from Trump you lost your bet. Fair enough. ... -- 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 14:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <448bb2b6-ab13-4a39-8b5d-6b88381c33c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449686 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 1:51:56 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: > >>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has > >>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing > >>> that has not happened. > >> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. > >> > >> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> > >> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his > >> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... > >> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to > >> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real > >> candidate in 2020). > >> > >> > > He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't > > make the answers lies. > > The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? > > > Do you have some*proof* of lies? > > The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of > his dishonesty. :) Is anyone's opinion on these alleged contradictions as strong an evidence as: "I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false" - Bill Clinton Even that response is full of sh*t. > > One or your > > ridiculous links has Trump asked if he had thought much over a period > > of time about running for politics. He said no. That is supposedly > > one of the examples of him "lying under oath." LOL! > > He has considered it since at least 1987, and spoke of it publicly. If > you go by Carroll's standard, ANY lie should count... 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpft9Fsf2jU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449695 |
On 4/30/18 2:15 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 1:51:56 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: >>>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has >>>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing >>>>> that has not happened. >>>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. >>>> >>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> >>>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his >>>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... >>>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to >>>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real >>>> candidate in 2020). >>>> >>>> >>> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't >>> make the answers lies. >> >> The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? >> >>> Do you have some*proof* of lies? >> >> The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of >> his dishonesty. :) > > Is anyone's opinion on these alleged contradictions as strong an evidence as: > > "I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, > but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain > my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false" - Bill Clinton > > Even that response is full of sh*t. What does that have to do with Trump? He was not even president then? Or are you just working to move goal posts to Bill Clinton again? >>> One or your >>> ridiculous links has Trump asked if he had thought much over a period >>> of time about running for politics. He said no. That is supposedly >>> one of the examples of him "lying under oath." LOL! >> >> He has considered it since at least 1987, and spoke of it publicly. If >> you go by Carroll's standard, ANY lie should count... > > 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. I see it as selective enforcement of the law, and that seems to bother you. So be 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 14:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3434a68-2487-4c74-82f9-26f150ca860c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449701 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:25:00 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/18 2:15 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 1:51:56 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: > >>>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has > >>>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing > >>>>> that has not happened. > >>>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. > >>>> > >>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> > >>>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his > >>>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... > >>>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to > >>>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real > >>>> candidate in 2020). > >>>> > >>>> > >>> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't > >>> make the answers lies. > >> > >> The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? > >> > >>> Do you have some*proof* of lies? > >> > >> The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of > >> his dishonesty. :) > > > > Is anyone's opinion on these alleged contradictions as strong an evidence as: > > > > "I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, > > but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain > > my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false" - Bill Clinton > > > > Even that response is full of sh*t. > > What does that have to do with Trump? This has to do with what *you* consider to be "evidence" and your ability to conduct a logical discussion that utilizes any. You're trying to present "evidence" as if you have the ability to spot what it is, I'm clearly trying to find out how far outta whack you are. > >>> One or your > >>> ridiculous links has Trump asked if he had thought much over a period > >>> of time about running for politics. He said no. That is supposedly > >>> one of the examples of him "lying under oath." LOL! > >> > >> He has considered it since at least 1987, and spoke of it publicly. If > >> you go by Carroll's standard, ANY lie should count... > > > > 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 see it as selective enforcement of the law, > and that seems to bother you. So be it. And the SCOTUS *unanimously* helped 'red' do it <eyeroll>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkphgjFsf2jU11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449717 |
On 4/30/18 2:45 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:25:00 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 4/30/18 2:15 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 1:51:56 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has >>>>>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing >>>>>>> that has not happened. >>>>>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> >>>>>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his >>>>>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... >>>>>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to >>>>>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real >>>>>> candidate in 2020). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't >>>>> make the answers lies. >>>> >>>> The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? >>>> >>>>> Do you have some*proof* of lies? >>>> >>>> The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of >>>> his dishonesty. :) >>> >>> Is anyone's opinion on these alleged contradictions as strong an evidence as: >>> >>> "I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, >>> but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain >>> my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false" - Bill Clinton >>> >>> Even that response is full of sh*t. >> >> What does that have to do with Trump? > > This has to do with what *you* consider to be "evidence" and your > ability to conduct a logical discussion that utilizes any. You're trying > to present "evidence" as if you have the ability to spot what it is, I'm > clearly trying to find out how far outta whack you are. So nothing about Trump but again you change the topic to your view of me. Sure. Your world revolves around ME. I get pulled into such nonsense debates -- that is on me. You obsess over me -- that is on you. Fair enough. >>>>> One or your >>>>> ridiculous links has Trump asked if he had thought much over a period >>>>> of time about running for politics. He said no. That is supposedly >>>>> one of the examples of him "lying under oath." LOL! >>>> >>>> He has considered it since at least 1987, and spoke of it publicly. If >>>> you go by Carroll's standard, ANY lie should count... >>> >>> 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. ... -- 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 15:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1691f1e8-afb5-413d-b57a-2d5144d3b801@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449719 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:52:22 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/18 2:45 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:25:00 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 4/30/18 2:15 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 1:51:56 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>> On 4/30/18 11:52 AM, owl wrote: > >>>>>>> Any POTUS*can* be impeached. Trump can't until evidence has > >>>>>>> surfaced that he has engaged in an impeachable offense, a thing > >>>>>>> that has not happened. > >>>>>> Well, other than lots of lying under oath... and it seems like a lot more. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-president-constitution-720430> > >>>>>> OR<https://goo.gl/QobJZR>. But it cannot and will not happen with his > >>>>>> party in office. Might not even happen if Democrats get into power... > >>>>>> few expect Trump to get to a second term (of course few expected him to > >>>>>> get to a first term, but hopefully he is running against a real > >>>>>> candidate in 2020). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> He was asked questions. They didn't like the answers. That doesn't > >>>>> make the answers lies. > >>>> > >>>> The liking or not has no impact. Why even bring that up? > >>>> > >>>>> Do you have some*proof* of lies? > >>>> > >>>> The fact his comments contradict themselves is pretty strong evidence of > >>>> his dishonesty. :) > >>> > >>> Is anyone's opinion on these alleged contradictions as strong an evidence as: > >>> > >>> "I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, > >>> but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain > >>> my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false" - Bill Clinton > >>> > >>> Even that response is full of sh*t. > >> > >> What does that have to do with Trump? > > > > This has to do with what *you* consider to be "evidence" and your > > ability to conduct a logical discussion that utilizes any. You're trying > > to present "evidence" as if you have the ability to spot what it is, I'm > > clearly trying to find out how far outta whack you are. > > So nothing about Trump but again you change the topic to your view of > me. 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>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 15:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkpiveFt531U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449721 |
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. But we disagree about Clinton's impeachment (even if you cannot even say, other than to play word games, what you disagree with). Fair enough. I do not need you to agree. Are you ready to move on? I am... and should have already done so. My weakness is I get pulled into such idiotic and meaningless debates, yours is your obsession with me. Let us both try to not fall prey to our own weaknesses. Fair enough? -- 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 5 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