billvon 3,131 #51 April 19, 2004 >It is still a personal attack on a group of people casue he does not >agree with something they did. You are 100% right, and it makes his point pretty moot. But he has as much right to say that as other posters have to say "El Jefe Clintionista" or "the looney left." >Since you said I could: Kerry is a slimy bitch!!!! Happy to make your day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #52 April 19, 2004 Kerry is a Slimy Bitch!witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #53 April 19, 2004 QuoteBoy that sure LOOKS like you hate Republicans....I don't tend to call people I LIKE "Slimy Bitches". I hate islamic terrorists. That does not mean I hate all muslims. I think the RNC is a bunch of slimy bitches. That doesn't mean I hate them. Maybe I like slimy bitches. And it certainly doesn't imply anything about my opinion about the 99.999% of republicans who aren't members of the national committee. QuoteActually I compare Clintons actions and the Dems supporting those actions to make my points...If the Dems had said "Yep Clinton is an asshole for getting blown in the Oval Office, then lying under oath about it" Instead of "This is just a Republican ploy to make him look bad"...Well then I'd have no fire power. Here you go. Clinton is an asshole for many reasons including getting blown in the oval office and then lying about it. Impeaching him for getting blown in the oval office and lying about it was a republican ploy to have him removed from office having little to do with his competency as president. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you can't separate individual actions from stereotypical groups. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just like this quote from you? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- am biased. I think the RNC is a bunch of slimy bitches who care only about retaining power -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey Pot!!! this is the Kettle...Your Black! Do you know what the RNC is? It seems to me you think I'm talking about the GOP. One is the entire party, the other is a small group. You can't stereotype someone as being a member of the RNC. Either they have the membership card or they don't. Quite a bit different from you classifying anyone who doesn't like Bush as being a democrat Clinton lover. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #54 April 19, 2004 QuoteThey are intentionally making it harder for them to do business in retaliation for criticizing them. That's called censorship. Hmmm. I generally agree with you, but I'd have to say the democrats have been far more guilty of that kind of thing than the republicans, on balance. Remember how FDR used to have the IRS deliver tax returns of his political enemies to him so that he could gloat over how much he had punished them with taxes?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #55 April 19, 2004 QuoteHere you go. Clinton is an asshole for many reasons including getting blown in the oval office and then lying about it. Impeaching him for getting blown in the oval office and lying about it was a republican ploy to have him removed from office having little to do with his competency as president. While getting a BJ in office is not a good reason, I personally think lying under oath is a damn fine reason to impeach a President. If you can't trust him to tell the truth about something so trivial, how can you expect him to tell the truth about anything? QuoteYou can't stereotype someone as being a member of the RNC. Either they have the membership card or they don't But you are slamming all of them for the actions of a few. And personal slams about their genetic makeup and hygene habbits., not the actions that called you to arms. QuoteAnother example of Republican abuse of power and cencorship This was your title...Not "Some RNC members and a personal vendetta". Then you called them all slimy bitches...Even the 15 that didn't vote for it. A shotgun attack at a group, not a deed."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #56 April 19, 2004 No argument there. It's definitely a bi-partisan effort to pass these new FCC regulations as well. As I've stated before, the only purpose I see for the power brokers in the two parties anymore is to maintain their power. Everything else be damned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #57 April 19, 2004 Kev: You are one cynical SOB, aren't you! Welcome to the club! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #58 April 19, 2004 funny, if you substitute gun industry for newspaper many people here would sing a completely different tune. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #59 April 19, 2004 QuoteWhile getting a BJ in office is not a good reason, I personally think lying under oath is a damn fine reason to impeach a President. If you can't trust him to tell the truth about something so trivial, how can you expect him to tell the truth about anything? Why was he asked the question in the first place? What was the reason he was asked to testify under oath about it? Rhetorical, I really don't want to debate this historical issue. But, I doubt he considered the implication to his marriage to be trivial while the importance and relevance to his performance as CIC was. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another example of Republican abuse of power and cencorship -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This was your title...Not "Some RNC members and a personal vendetta". Then you called them all slimy bitches...Even the 15 that didn't vote for it. I'll ask again, do you know what the RNC is? Because you're saying that what I said about the RNC has something to do with republican state legislators. As far as I know, none of them are members of the RNC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #60 April 19, 2004 Quote I don't think any legitimate newspaper should be taxed. Free speech, freedom of the press, etc., does not mean free but with taxes added. Any tax imposes some burden on the freedom of speech, and is then open to abuse by government. Who determines legitimacy? They can avoid sales taxes by making it a free paper. Quite a few exist here in San Francisco based on ad revenues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #61 April 19, 2004 Quotefunny, if you substitute gun industry for newspaper many people here would sing a completely different tune. I wouldn't. That's why I frequently find myself agreeing with and arguing with the same posters in different threads. Yes I still get labeled a "lefty" and "dcmocrat" and "clinton lover" whenever I happen to side on an issue that doesn't agree with the GOP party line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #62 April 19, 2004 QuoteI'll ask again, do you know what the RNC is? Yeah, but you seem to confuse the two. QuoteBecause you're saying that what I said about the RNC has something to do with republican state legislators. As far as I know, none of them are members of the RNC. Then why did you say that the RNC were a bunch of slimy bitches when you just admitted that the people who voted for this are not members? So lets see you slammed the RNC for something that a group of people that rae not even memebers did? Thats funny. QuoteWhy was he asked the question in the first place? What was the reason he was asked to testify under oath about it? Cause as the CiC he has a duty to be honest. And as the President he sets the standard by which the whole US is judged...And just as now the world thinks we are a bunch of Texas rednecks, back then the world thought we were a bunch of sex crazed liars. Was the push a Republican push? Yes, as is the no WMD's in Iraq is a Dem push. Thats how things work. QuoteBut, I doubt he considered the implication to his marriage to be trivial while the importance and relevance to his performance as CIC was. He did a bad thing, then instead of admitting it when he was caught, he tried to get us to define "sex" and "is". He only admitted it AFTER he could no longer be hurt by it. A really crappy man. And I while I can even admit that he had a few good policies, and was a great speaker...He was immoral, and ethicly bankrupt."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,131 #63 April 19, 2004 Wow, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill . . . this thread is one of the sillier ones here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #64 April 19, 2004 QuoteYeah, but you seem to confuse the two. You're taking things out of context. It was a tongue-in-cheek response to an accusation of bias. The only reason I'm defending it from your misinterpretation is because it's amusing to watch you argue such a non-sensical moot point. And as far as the Clinton stuff....apparently you didn't see the part about those questions being rhetorical. I really have no desire to argue about that non-issue. But I will address "back then the world thought we were a bunch of sex crazed liars". Actually, the sentiment I saw from Europe was that we were a bunch of sexually repressed puritans making an issue out of nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #65 April 19, 2004 QuoteWow, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill . . . this thread is one of the sillier ones here. I consider that a personal attack. This could be much sillier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #66 April 19, 2004 QuoteYou're taking things out of context. It was a tongue-in-cheek response to an accusation of bias. Then you were speaking out of context...I read exactly what you wrote. QuoteThe only reason I'm defending it from your misinterpretation is because it's amusing to watch you argue such a non-sensical moot point. From your shotgun slander. And its quite funny to see you act like Kerry. "I didn't say that". QuoteAnd as far as the Clinton stuff....apparently you didn't see the part about those questions being rhetorical You must think I cared you were retorical...I saw it and ignored it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,131 #67 April 19, 2004 >I consider that a personal attack. But I didn't . . . oh, darn, that's right, your nickname is "mountain" and you have a religious aversion to molehills. Sorry about that. >This could be much sillier. You think? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #68 April 19, 2004 Quote>This could be much sillier. You think? Well, I didn't get to the part about anyone's mother being a hampster and their father smelling of eldeberries yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,174 #69 April 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteThey are intentionally making it harder for them to do business in retaliation for criticizing them. That's called censorship. Hmmm. I generally agree with you, but I'd have to say the democrats have been far more guilty of that kind of thing than the republicans, on balance. Remember how FDR used to have the IRS deliver tax returns of his political enemies to him so that he could gloat over how much he had punished them with taxes? And Nixon got the IRS to audit his enemies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #70 April 20, 2004 QuoteAnd Nixon got the IRS to audit his enemies. What's the old saying about power and corruption?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #71 April 20, 2004 QuoteAnd Nixon got the IRS to audit his enemies. And so did Clinton. How was Z-Hills? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
PhillyKev 0 #59 April 19, 2004 QuoteWhile getting a BJ in office is not a good reason, I personally think lying under oath is a damn fine reason to impeach a President. If you can't trust him to tell the truth about something so trivial, how can you expect him to tell the truth about anything? Why was he asked the question in the first place? What was the reason he was asked to testify under oath about it? Rhetorical, I really don't want to debate this historical issue. But, I doubt he considered the implication to his marriage to be trivial while the importance and relevance to his performance as CIC was. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another example of Republican abuse of power and cencorship -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This was your title...Not "Some RNC members and a personal vendetta". Then you called them all slimy bitches...Even the 15 that didn't vote for it. I'll ask again, do you know what the RNC is? Because you're saying that what I said about the RNC has something to do with republican state legislators. As far as I know, none of them are members of the RNC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #60 April 19, 2004 Quote I don't think any legitimate newspaper should be taxed. Free speech, freedom of the press, etc., does not mean free but with taxes added. Any tax imposes some burden on the freedom of speech, and is then open to abuse by government. Who determines legitimacy? They can avoid sales taxes by making it a free paper. Quite a few exist here in San Francisco based on ad revenues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #61 April 19, 2004 Quotefunny, if you substitute gun industry for newspaper many people here would sing a completely different tune. I wouldn't. That's why I frequently find myself agreeing with and arguing with the same posters in different threads. Yes I still get labeled a "lefty" and "dcmocrat" and "clinton lover" whenever I happen to side on an issue that doesn't agree with the GOP party line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #62 April 19, 2004 QuoteI'll ask again, do you know what the RNC is? Yeah, but you seem to confuse the two. QuoteBecause you're saying that what I said about the RNC has something to do with republican state legislators. As far as I know, none of them are members of the RNC. Then why did you say that the RNC were a bunch of slimy bitches when you just admitted that the people who voted for this are not members? So lets see you slammed the RNC for something that a group of people that rae not even memebers did? Thats funny. QuoteWhy was he asked the question in the first place? What was the reason he was asked to testify under oath about it? Cause as the CiC he has a duty to be honest. And as the President he sets the standard by which the whole US is judged...And just as now the world thinks we are a bunch of Texas rednecks, back then the world thought we were a bunch of sex crazed liars. Was the push a Republican push? Yes, as is the no WMD's in Iraq is a Dem push. Thats how things work. QuoteBut, I doubt he considered the implication to his marriage to be trivial while the importance and relevance to his performance as CIC was. He did a bad thing, then instead of admitting it when he was caught, he tried to get us to define "sex" and "is". He only admitted it AFTER he could no longer be hurt by it. A really crappy man. And I while I can even admit that he had a few good policies, and was a great speaker...He was immoral, and ethicly bankrupt."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #63 April 19, 2004 Wow, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill . . . this thread is one of the sillier ones here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #64 April 19, 2004 QuoteYeah, but you seem to confuse the two. You're taking things out of context. It was a tongue-in-cheek response to an accusation of bias. The only reason I'm defending it from your misinterpretation is because it's amusing to watch you argue such a non-sensical moot point. And as far as the Clinton stuff....apparently you didn't see the part about those questions being rhetorical. I really have no desire to argue about that non-issue. But I will address "back then the world thought we were a bunch of sex crazed liars". Actually, the sentiment I saw from Europe was that we were a bunch of sexually repressed puritans making an issue out of nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #65 April 19, 2004 QuoteWow, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill . . . this thread is one of the sillier ones here. I consider that a personal attack. This could be much sillier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #66 April 19, 2004 QuoteYou're taking things out of context. It was a tongue-in-cheek response to an accusation of bias. Then you were speaking out of context...I read exactly what you wrote. QuoteThe only reason I'm defending it from your misinterpretation is because it's amusing to watch you argue such a non-sensical moot point. From your shotgun slander. And its quite funny to see you act like Kerry. "I didn't say that". QuoteAnd as far as the Clinton stuff....apparently you didn't see the part about those questions being rhetorical You must think I cared you were retorical...I saw it and ignored it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #67 April 19, 2004 >I consider that a personal attack. But I didn't . . . oh, darn, that's right, your nickname is "mountain" and you have a religious aversion to molehills. Sorry about that. >This could be much sillier. You think? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #68 April 19, 2004 Quote>This could be much sillier. You think? Well, I didn't get to the part about anyone's mother being a hampster and their father smelling of eldeberries yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #69 April 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteThey are intentionally making it harder for them to do business in retaliation for criticizing them. That's called censorship. Hmmm. I generally agree with you, but I'd have to say the democrats have been far more guilty of that kind of thing than the republicans, on balance. Remember how FDR used to have the IRS deliver tax returns of his political enemies to him so that he could gloat over how much he had punished them with taxes? And Nixon got the IRS to audit his enemies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #70 April 20, 2004 QuoteAnd Nixon got the IRS to audit his enemies. What's the old saying about power and corruption?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #71 April 20, 2004 QuoteAnd Nixon got the IRS to audit his enemies. And so did Clinton. How was Z-Hills? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
