kallend 2,184 #26 August 27, 2010 www.google.com/search?q=bush+lies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGGL_enUS389US364 Bush lies : 24,800,00 results. www.google.com/search?q=bush+moron&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGGL_enUS389US364 Bush moron: 2,340,000 results What a fun game!... 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
Lucky... 0 #27 August 27, 2010 Quotewww.google.com/search?q=bush+lies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGGL_enUS389US364 Bush lies : 24,800,00 results. www.google.com/search?q=bush+moron&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGGL_enUS389US364 Bush moron: 2,340,000 results What a fun game! But Bush a lying moron is only 835,000 hits. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS341US341&q=Bush+is+a+lieing+moron#hl=en&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS341US341&&sa=X&ei=Yi13TNeoF4P6sAOC3tSgDQ&ved=0CBYQvwUoAQ&q=Bush+is+a+lying+moron&spell=1&fp=ad526d12389e3c08 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #28 August 27, 2010 Can't admit i was wrong? You didn't read my response eto Bill, did you? I thought not. You don't remeber well, do you? I still remeber watching senators from both parties being interviewed and saying they knew Clinton was guilty but did not feel his crimes were worth removal and therefor they voted in his favor. Tell me, how does it feel to think sexual harrassment and perjury aren't worth prosecuting? How does it feel to think some people are above the law? Amazing what we forget just so our idols can remain untarnished in our minds, isn't it? You can keep guessing as to who my favorite Pres was, but I'll give you a hint: Nobody on this forum was alive when that man died. Keep guessing and playing lawyer/market guru/mechanic/financial whiz/banker/political expert/pilot. We are all allowed to fantasize. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #29 August 27, 2010 >But that does not alter the fact that the majority of the Sanate believed >he was guilty but voted 'not guilty' because the Constitution only allows >for the removal of the impeached and they felt his crimes were not of a >serious enough nature to remove him from office. You are correct. And again, the equivalent would be a jury who thought the indicted guy was a lowlife lying scumbag, but voted "not guilty" because they felt his actions were not of a serious enough nature to find him guilty of the crime he was charged with. You can surely disagree with the verdict of that jury; many people do. But by every legal standard we have, that person is not guilty of the crime he was accused of. Even if he was previously indicted (or impeached.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #30 August 27, 2010 What? Still no comment on that criminally guilty guy who didged prison? Yea, you and your neo-con senators too: http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/07/gop-senators-who-voted-for-clinton.html But that guy who got the BJ and lied is worth hanging . See, the country had enough of the family values neo-cons like you and all these senators. Oh, show us a list of all the presidents you have voted for. Oh, it's personal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #31 August 27, 2010 Quote Can't admit i was wrong? You didn't read my response eto Bill, did you? I thought not. Quote You don't remeber well, do you? I still remeber watching senators from both parties being interviewed and saying they knew Clinton was guilty but did not feel his crimes were worth removal and therefor they voted in his favor. 27 and 32 of them respectively? Post some, hell, then post 27 and 32 and we'll see if that saved his ass or it's your fuzzy math. Ken Star and Newt couldn't get their witchunt to yield even a simple majority and you claim there were 27 and 32 who switched votes.....but let me guess..... it's your guess. Again, fun to be in your mind Oh, and this: Belgian: He WAS found guilty (it is called IMPEACHMENT) by the House of Representatives but was not punished by the Senate. Lucky: An impeachment is a political indictment, it makes possible the trial process; it's only a way to bring it to trial, not a conviction. It's tantamount to a probable cause hearing. Belgian: Yes, you are correct. But that does not alter the fact that the majority of the Sanate believed he was guilty but voted 'not guilty' because the Constitution only allows for the removal of the impeached and they felt his crimes were not of a serious enough nature to remove him from office. Lucky: Are you like the Fonz; can you not admit you're wrong? Belgian: Can't admit i was wrong? You didn't read my response eto Bill, did you? I thought not. So then you admit you are wrong about THE IMPEACHMENT FROM THE HOUSE BEING A FINDING OF GUILT? I read teh rest of your excuse about the senate, a very unsubstantiated assertion considering it would take 27 andd 32 senators to flip votes, but the issue was about the impeachment from teh House, not the voting from the trial body, the senate, Mr Strawman. It'll be typical to watch you squirm out of this very simple question: are you flat wrong about the impeachment being a conviction? Quote Tell me, how does it feel to think sexual harrassment and perjury aren't worth prosecuting? Tell me, how does it feel to have no clue about the Clinton Impeachment? He wasn't impeached om the 2 sucessful counts of sexual harrassment, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction. By the end of this thread you'll then have an understanding. I had an advantage, I was taking poli-sci in the midst of the witchunt. Quote How does it feel to think some people are above the law? Well, I was trying to understand that which is why I asked you about LIBBY'S CRIMINAL CONVICTION, but you id as usual and ran from that one. Quote Amazing what we forget just so our idols can remain untarnished in our minds, isn't it? Well, sure, I didn't realize Scooter was your idol, but hey, an neo-con will do. Quote You can keep guessing as to who my favorite Pres was, but I'll give you a hint: Nobody on this forum was alive when that man died. Oh, that's right, it was Harding; the first Reagan. Quote Keep guessing and playing lawyer/market guru/mechanic/financial whiz/banker/political expert/pilot. We are all allowed to fantasize. Keep pretending to understand high school politics, clearly you don't. BTW, you didn't respond to the other post I wrote, I expect you won't - keep runnin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #32 August 27, 2010 Answer the question: Do you feel perjury and sexual harrassment are not worth prosecuting?HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #33 August 27, 2010 QuoteAnswer the question: Do you feel perjury and sexual harrassment are not worth prosecuting? Hahahahaaha, the preudo acft sheetmetal mech can't answer. To break from our forum neo-con, I will answer: Yes they are and under Clinton they did pursue the perjury (the sexual harrassment was never pursued, something Belgian will figure out as soon as he graduated high school) and came up empty as far as a conviction went. To give to the, "Give Belgian a political education" fund, I will help you with all 4 charges brought before the House: Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote)[14] and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote)[15]. Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205-229 vote)[16] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148-285 vote)[17]. Four Republicans opposed all four articles, while five Democrats voted for three of them and 1 Democrat for all four. Upon passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton became the first elected U.S. president and the second U.S. president to be impeached, following Andrew Johnson in 1868. (In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency before the House impeachment vote.) 2 passed, meaning they were political indictments, there was no sexual harrassment pursued nor indicted. Now, we'll all see you look sillier and for the 4th or 5th time dodge my question: WERE YOU FLAT WRONG, WITHOUT EXCUSES, WHEN YOU WROTE THAT AN IMPEACHMENT IS A CONVICTION? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #34 August 27, 2010 Quote WERE YOU FLAT WRONG, WITHOUT EXCUSES, WHEN YOU WROTE THAT AN IMPEACHMENT IS A CONVICTION? dude.... I read him saying he was wrong about that. calm down. take a step back from your caps lock.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #35 August 27, 2010 QuoteQuote WERE YOU FLAT WRONG, WITHOUT EXCUSES, WHEN YOU WROTE THAT AN IMPEACHMENT IS A CONVICTION? dude.... I read him saying he was wrong about that. calm down. take a step back from your caps lock. Ok course he's wrong, I just wanted to see him admit that WITHOUT ANY BS RATIONALIZATIONS. This is not a question of whether Clinton lied, whether the senators gave him a break, this is a singular question of whether Belgian has the character to admit he wasn't aware of how the impeachment process works; obviously he didn't but has now been educated. It's both fun and typically boring to watch one neo-con come to the rescue of another, so let's take a break from that and see if Belgian can answer the question himself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #36 August 27, 2010 Quote It's both fun and typically boring to watch one neo-con come to the rescue of another, so let's take a break from that and see if Belgian can answer the question himself. yeah... stop calling me a neo-con. I'm not. I've told you before. you won't get called on it being a personal attack because it's not like saying you're a liberal sheep fucker. It's more political in nature and thus one of the allowed personal attacks that are frequently ignored by your like-minded moderators. that is all.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 August 27, 2010 QuoteWhat? Still no comment on that criminally guilty guy who didged prison? You mean 'Socks' Berger?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #38 August 27, 2010 QuoteQuoteAnswer the question: Do you feel perjury and sexual harrassment are not worth prosecuting? Hahahahaaha, the preudo acft sheetmetal mech can't answer. To break from our forum neo-con, I will answer: Yes they are and under Clinton they did pursue the perjury (the sexual harrassment was never pursued, something Belgian will figure out as soon as he graduated high school) and came up empty as far as a conviction went. To give to the, "Give Belgian a political education" fund, I will help you with all 4 charges brought before the House: Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote)[14] and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote)[15]. Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205-229 vote)[16] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148-285 vote)[17]. Four Republicans opposed all four articles, while five Democrats voted for three of them and 1 Democrat for all four. Upon passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton became the first elected U.S. president and the second U.S. president to be impeached, following Andrew Johnson in 1868. (In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency before the House impeachment vote.) 2 passed, meaning they were political indictments, there was no sexual harrassment pursued nor indicted. Now, we'll all see you look sillier and for the 4th or 5th time dodge my question: WERE YOU FLAT WRONG, WITHOUT EXCUSES, WHEN YOU WROTE THAT AN IMPEACHMENT IS A CONVICTION? 1: We have already established in another thread that i have forgotten more knowledge about aircraft sheetmetal than you will ever have. 2: I never stated Clinton was brought up on charges of sexual harrassment, but he was being investigated and eventually settled out of court.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #39 August 28, 2010 Quote Quote It's both fun and typically boring to watch one neo-con come to the rescue of another, so let's take a break from that and see if Belgian can answer the question himself. yeah... stop calling me a neo-con. I'm not. I've told you before. you won't get called on it being a personal attack because it's not like saying you're a liberal sheep fucker. It's more political in nature and thus one of the allowed personal attacks that are frequently ignored by your like-minded moderators. that is all. Neo-cons: - Love tax cuts - Hate social spending - Love military war spending In what way are you not in agreement with these 3? As for PA, I think SC is more loosely moderated than let's say the Bonfire, esp when it comes to political labels. Don't like it, don't come here I think is the standard. As for Neo-con being a PA at all, I don't see it that way, at least not more vile than just saying, "conservative" or "Republican." So as you were, neo-con Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #40 August 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteWhat? Still no comment on that criminally guilty guy who didged prison? You mean 'Socks' Berger? NAw, RW maggotted Steinbrenner of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #41 August 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat? Still no comment on that criminally guilty guy who didged prison? You mean 'Socks' Berger? NAw, RW maggotted Steinbrenner of course. You just don't have the mental fortitude to make a comment without using hate speech, do you. Never mind - it was rhetorical.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #42 August 28, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Answer the question: Do you feel perjury and sexual harrassment are not worth prosecuting? Hahahahaaha, the preudo acft sheetmetal mech can't answer. To break from our forum neo-con, I will answer: Yes they are and under Clinton they did pursue the perjury (the sexual harrassment was never pursued, something Belgian will figure out as soon as he graduated high school) and came up empty as far as a conviction went. To give to the, "Give Belgian a political education" fund, I will help you with all 4 charges brought before the House: Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote)[14] and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote)[15]. Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205-229 vote)[16] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148-285 vote)[17]. Four Republicans opposed all four articles, while five Democrats voted for three of them and 1 Democrat for all four. Upon passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton became the first elected U.S. president and the second U.S. president to be impeached, following Andrew Johnson in 1868. (In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency before the House impeachment vote.) 2 passed, meaning they were political indictments, there was no sexual harrassment pursued nor indicted. Now, we'll all see you look sillier and for the 4th or 5th time dodge my question: WERE YOU FLAT WRONG, WITHOUT EXCUSES, WHEN YOU WROTE THAT AN IMPEACHMENT IS A CONVICTION? Quote 1: We have already established in another thread that i have forgotten more knowledge about aircraft sheetmetal than you will ever have. Yea, go swell and draw those cherry rivets . My leads would have you out the gate seconds after hearing anyone saying that. I've worked acft for decades and you think you have a clue as compared to me? What a total joke. You're like a 100-jump wonder trying to teach the 2k, 3k+ jumpers how to skydive; we all see that. Quote 2: I never stated Clinton was brought up on charges of sexual harrassment, but he was being investigated and eventually settled out of court. You wrote: Answer the question: Do you feel perjury and sexual harrassment are not worth prosecuting? Well then why did you ask if they were worth prosecuting? With you lack of understanding of a simple political process taught in high school such as impeachment, yo were dead wrong thinking the House convicted and the senate then punnished based upon that finding of guilt, so it appears logical that you did think 1 of teh 4 charges was harrassment. So still running? Here it is again for you to continue to run from: He WAS found guilty (it is called IMPEACHMENT) by the House of Representatives but was not punished by the Senate. My question again: WERE YOU FLAT WRONG, WITHOUT EXCUSES, WHEN YOU WROTE THAT AN IMPEACHMENT IS A CONVICTION? Everyone watch Belgian run like hell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #43 August 28, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote What? Still no comment on that criminally guilty guy who didged prison? You mean 'Socks' Berger? NAw, RW maggotted Steinbrenner of course. You just don't have the mental fortitude to make a comment without using hate speech, do you. Never mind - it was rhetorical. And you added what to this thread???? Usual zippo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #44 August 28, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote What? Still no comment on that criminally guilty guy who didged prison? You mean 'Socks' Berger? NAw, RW maggotted Steinbrenner of course. You just don't have the mental fortitude to make a comment without using hate speech, do you. Never mind - it was rhetorical. And you added what to this thread???? Usual zippo. And still more than you - everytime.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #45 August 28, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote What? Still no comment on that criminally guilty guy who didged prison? You mean 'Socks' Berger? NAw, RW maggotted Steinbrenner of course. You just don't have the mental fortitude to make a comment without using hate speech, do you. Never mind - it was rhetorical. And you added what to this thread???? Usual zippo. And still more than you - everytime. For starters I educated your neo-con cohort about the political impeachment process, what have you added? Oh yea, zippo..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #46 August 28, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote What? Still no comment on that criminally guilty guy who didged prison? You mean 'Socks' Berger? NAw, RW maggotted Steinbrenner of course. You just don't have the mental fortitude to make a comment without using hate speech, do you. Never mind - it was rhetorical. And you added what to this thread???? Usual zippo. And still more than you - everytime. For starters I educated your neo-con cohort about the political impeachment process, what have you added? Oh yea, zippo..... It's your fairy tale - tell it like you want it...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #47 August 28, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote What? Still no comment on that criminally guilty guy who didged prison? You mean 'Socks' Berger? NAw, RW maggotted Steinbrenner of course. You just don't have the mental fortitude to make a comment without using hate speech, do you. Never mind - it was rhetorical. And you added what to this thread???? Usual zippo. And still more than you - everytime. For starters I educated your neo-con cohort about the political impeachment process, what have you added? Oh yea, zippo..... It's your fairy tale - tell it like you want it... And still more than you - everytime. and It's your fairy tale - tell it like you want it... After a while all the neo-cons rescuing each other all blend togetehr. Don't you find it funny how Belgian thinks or at least thought that an impeachment from the House of Reps was a conviction? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #48 August 28, 2010 Bill corrected me, i told him he was correct. End of that story. Swell and draw can be used to describe many processes. The process you are familiar with is but one. Are you so ignorant you think there are no others? You said welding was never used to join skin on aircraft. You are wrong and i gave you an example. You said that"if you can't autogeneous weld it, then just Tig it". You have no clue as to what you are talking about and that one statement is proof. You defend Clinton as if he were a god, hence the question do you feel perjury and sexual harrassment are not worth prosecuting? I see from your other posts that you have narrowed the definition of neo-con down to three criteria. Must be so you can fit more of those who disagree with you into the pool.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #49 August 28, 2010 Quote After a while all the neo-cons rescuing each other all blend togetehr. Rescuing each other? Don't flatter yourself - it's us laughing at the political equivalent of the truther threads. Quote Don't you find it funny how Belgian thinks or at least thought that an impeachment from the House of Reps was a conviction? It doesn't directly translate - Clinton *was* impeached. The Senate refusal to remove him from office would be more analogous to probation or a suspended sentence.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #50 August 28, 2010 Quote As for Neo-con being a PA at all, I don't see it that way, at least not more vile than just saying, "conservative" or "Republican." So as you were, neo-con ok you liberal goat fucker-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
