mnealtx 0 #26 January 22, 2008 Case in point.... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #27 January 22, 2008 Quote Case in point.... What, no address to this: Funny how Repuklicans think like this: DEM: Can't believe Clinton was impeached for a BJ. REP: He wasn't, he was impeached for lying to Congress and obstruction. DEM: Yea, but it was over a BJ, not something important. REP: It was over lying to Congress and obstruction, PERIOD. DEM: Then how is it that Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to Congress and obstruction in a CRIMINL court, yet he then had his jail sontence commuted? REP: Uh, er, well, Clinton lied to Congress... ... weren't we talking about that? PURELY, WELL, PATHETIC....not to mention the loser heading the witchhunt was fucking his secretarty at the time. ____________________________________ Color me shocked Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #28 January 22, 2008 I'm sorry, was there supposed to be some equivalency between the two?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #29 January 22, 2008 Quote Case in point.... The title of this thread is, "Less than one year to go!" So should I take it that you are defending this presidency? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #30 January 22, 2008 QuoteI'm sorry, was there supposed to be some equivalency between the two? Yes, it is hard to understand that they were both indicted of lying to congress, obstruction-type offenses, your boy was actually convicted in a criminal court; is this so hard to understand or are you just posturing? In case you further don't understand, Clinton was politically exonerated, your loser was convicted then had his prison term commuted, full pardon to follow. So was it about a BJ or about lying? Was it about revealing an agent or about lying? See ya later, I'm sure you won't be responding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 January 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'm sorry, was there supposed to be some equivalency between the two? Yes, it is hard to understand that they were both indicted of lying to congress, obstruction-type offenses, your boy was actually convicted in a criminal court; is this so hard to understand or are you just posturing? In case you further don't understand, Clinton was politically exonerated, your loser was convicted then had his prison term commuted, full pardon to follow. So was it about a BJ or about lying? Was it about revealing an agent or about lying? See ya later, I'm sure you won't be responding. *yawn* Exonerated by Congress, exonerated by pardon... so what? The person that actually LEAKED the info, Armitage, is STILL out on the street. Just shows that the whole thing was a blatant attempt to get a Repub...and they did.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #32 January 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm sorry, was there supposed to be some equivalency between the two? Yes, it is hard to understand that they were both indicted of lying to congress, obstruction-type offenses, your boy was actually convicted in a criminal court; is this so hard to understand or are you just posturing? In case you further don't understand, Clinton was politically exonerated, your loser was convicted then had his prison term commuted, full pardon to follow. So was it about a BJ or about lying? Was it about revealing an agent or about lying? See ya later, I'm sure you won't be responding. *yawn* Exonerated by Congress, exonerated by pardon... so what? The person that actually LEAKED the info, Armitage, is STILL out on the street. Just shows that the whole thing was a blatant attempt to get a Repub...and they did. Time for the ABC's of legal terms. Clinton was politically indicted, Libby criminally. Clinton was never convicted by a jury of 100 senators, 67 were needed. Libby was convicted by a jury of 12 (unless that jurisdiction had a few less, but I doubt it), and 100% were needed with a standard of proof to be beyond a reasonable doubt, or >80-90%. Once more, Clinton was never convicted by using a lower (easier) standard of conviction, Libby was convicted and then let off the hook, just like former Republican president Nixon was let off the hook before the conviction. Is that easy enough for even you to understand? As for who did it, it being the leak, he wasn't convicted of the leak, he was convicted for lying to congress; do we have to go over that again? Your argument is tanatmount to that of the Dems: is it about a BJ or about a lie? Is it about a leak or about a lie? If you need further help to understand this I can make it a little easier, but not much. You can't clammer your, "It was about a lie not a BJ" rhetoric and not expect it be used against you with LIbby. Furthermore, a BJ is harmless, leaking the name of an agent is harmfull, so you would even lose on that front. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #33 January 22, 2008 > You keep on ignoring conveniently, that Clinton . . . . One of the best things about seeing a democratic president elected is that we may finally see the end of "BUT CLINTON GOT A BLOWJOB!" as the inevitable final argument of many right wingers. Perhaps the replacement will be "BUT OBAMA SMOKED POT!" Which is no better, but at least it will be different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #34 January 22, 2008 Quote And your party, headed by Lott who was, at the time, fucking his secretary, led the asault for the impeachemnt of Clinton for doing what; fucking an aide. Now you think it wasn't enough? Funny how Repuklicans think like this: DEM: Can't believe Clinton was impeached for a BJ. REP: He wasn't, he was impeached for lying to Congress and obstruction. DEM: Yea, but it was over a BJ, not something important. REP: It was over lying to Congress and obstruction, PERIOD. DEM: Then how is it that Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to Congress and obstruction in a CRIMINL court, yet he then had his jail sontence commuted? REP: Uh, er, well, Clinton lied to Congress... ... weren't we talking about that? PURELY, WELL, PATHETIC....not to mention the loser heading the witchhunt was fucking his secretarty at the time. I would think any Repubs out there would be intelligent enough to drop the clinton BS after the Lott and Libby fiasco..... but then we are talking about Republicans here Amazon, is that you? _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #35 January 22, 2008 Quote One of the best things about seeing a democratic president elected is that we may finally see the end of "BUT CLINTON GOT A BLOWJOB!" as the inevitable final argument of many right wingers. Perhaps the replacement will be "BUT OBAMA SMOKED POT!" Which is no better, but at least it will be different But, what if Hillary is elected? I'm sure she likes to use a strap on every now and then. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #36 January 22, 2008 Quoteas if the retirement plan, free healthcare for life, and personal bodyguard team of ss agents isn't enough???? I wonder if he would get to keep his SS Detail while he is imprisoned waiting trial at the World Court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #37 January 22, 2008 Quote Quote And your party, headed by Lott who was, at the time, fucking his secretary, led the asault for the impeachemnt of Clinton for doing what; fucking an aide. Now you think it wasn't enough? Funny how Repuklicans think like this: DEM: Can't believe Clinton was impeached for a BJ. REP: He wasn't, he was impeached for lying to Congress and obstruction. DEM: Yea, but it was over a BJ, not something important. REP: It was over lying to Congress and obstruction, PERIOD. DEM: Then how is it that Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to Congress and obstruction in a CRIMINL court, yet he then had his jail sontence commuted? REP: Uh, er, well, Clinton lied to Congress... ... weren't we talking about that? PURELY, WELL, PATHETIC....not to mention the loser heading the witchhunt was fucking his secretarty at the time. I would think any Repubs out there would be intelligent enough to drop the clinton BS after the Lott and Libby fiasco..... but then we are talking about Republicans here Amazon, is that you? Anvil, is that you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #38 January 22, 2008 Quote Quote One of the best things about seeing a democratic president elected is that we may finally see the end of "BUT CLINTON GOT A BLOWJOB!" as the inevitable final argument of many right wingers. Perhaps the replacement will be "BUT OBAMA SMOKED POT!" Which is no better, but at least it will be different But, what if Hillary is elected? I'm sure she likes to use a strap on every now and then. And she can just go find her local Republican if she wants a sexual deviant to play with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #39 January 22, 2008 Starting with Bush the Younger, Ex-Presidents will only get 10 years of USSS protection. They've gotta hire Blackwater or someone after that...Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #40 January 22, 2008 >And she can just go find her local Republican if she wants a sexual >deviant to play with. Hmm. Might be harder to get into public men's rooms though . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #41 January 22, 2008 They will probably be free after he is put on their board of directors for all the good work he has done for them in the last 7 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
