| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Snubis Snubis" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2003 04:32:33 PM |
| Object: |
Liberal Apologists |
.... it wouldn't matter if the president got caught *****-boning his own
daughter, liberal apologists would run out the same trite rationalizations
- It's his business / others have done it / its normal in Arkansas for
daddy to be the first / the economy is strong / his foreign policy is good
/ even the president can have a private life / its about sex / who else
would run the country / its between him and his consenting teenage
daughter / the incest-child abuse laws weren't really meant to be followed
anyway / etc etc etc...
.
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
29 Sep 2003 02:46:46 PM |
|
|
<Snubis> wrote in message
news:e4bec640004cba550dfc05a9669289fc@news.teranews.com...
... it wouldn't matter if the president got caught *****-boning his own
daughter, liberal apologists would run out the same trite rationalizations
- It's his business / others have done it / its normal in Arkansas for
daddy to be the first / the economy is strong / his foreign policy is good
Hon, The Clenis was years ago now. You can't distract everyone from the
Bush adminstration's spectacular derailment by bringing out The Clenis.
Yes, we know you're obsessed, but the rest of us have moved on.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
14 Oct 2003 03:44:11 PM |
|
|
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<g99cnvob7prgsdhaqv6i6stknifjjqsmak@4ax.com>...
Snubis <Snubis> wrote:
... it wouldn't matter if the president got caught *****-boning his own
daughter, liberal apologists would run out the same trite rationalizations
Rest assured, if Bush was caught doing that, we'd criticize it. Just
as we criticized Clinton for lying about sex.
Really, Greg? When did the democrats ever criticize Bubba for anything
he did, much lees for perjuring himself? Your crowd came up with every
excuse known to man defending this vile *****, both before he was
impeached, after he was impeached and continue defending him to this
very day. We have long memories, Greg, of how you leftists circled the
wagons around this mountebank, so just cut the revisionist claptrap.
And just a few of the excuses your crowd came up with were listed
right above in the original post.
Cordially, Marie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
14 Oct 2003 07:15:26 PM |
|
|
On 14 Oct 2003 13:44:11 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<g99cnvob7prgsdhaqv6i6stknifjjqsmak@4ax.com>...
Snubis <Snubis> wrote:
... it wouldn't matter if the president got caught *****-boning his own
daughter, liberal apologists would run out the same trite rationalizations
Rest assured, if Bush was caught doing that, we'd criticize it. Just
as we criticized Clinton for lying about sex.
Really, Greg? When did the democrats ever criticize Bubba for anything
he did, much lees for perjuring himself? Your crowd came up with every
excuse known to man defending this vile *****, both before he was
impeached, after he was impeached and continue defending him to this
very day. We have long memories, Greg, of how you leftists circled the
wagons around this mountebank, so just cut the revisionist claptrap.
And just a few of the excuses your crowd came up with were listed
right above in the original post.
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
Of course, if you claim it, it must be true, huh?
Cordially, Marie
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
14 Oct 2003 07:37:35 PM |
|
|
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:g94povs200gb6incdvnfph75mfo47n6pth@4ax.com...
On 14 Oct 2003 13:44:11 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<g99cnvob7prgsdhaqv6i6stknifjjqsmak@4ax.com>...
Snubis <Snubis> wrote:
... it wouldn't matter if the president got caught *****-boning his own
daughter, liberal apologists would run out the same trite
rationalizations
Rest assured, if Bush was caught doing that, we'd criticize it. Just
as we criticized Clinton for lying about sex.
Really, Greg? When did the democrats ever criticize Bubba for anything
he did, much lees for perjuring himself? Your crowd came up with every
excuse known to man defending this vile *****, both before he was
impeached, after he was impeached and continue defending him to this
very day. We have long memories, Greg, of how you leftists circled the
wagons around this mountebank, so just cut the revisionist claptrap.
And just a few of the excuses your crowd came up with were listed
right above in the original post.
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
And it wouldn't have been the subject of impeachment hearings if Clinton
didn't commit perjury
You know, in many companies, sexual harrassment suits could be filed against
a CEO's for having sexual relationships with their secretary's and/or
interns.
Amazing how people expected Bill Clinton to just get away with it because he
is "Bill Clinton"
You notice now, that Bill Clinton doesn't have the affect he used to have on
people. Example: His appearance in California certainly didn't help out
Davis. It is a good sign that this country is getting the Clinton's out of
our lives.
I too, didn't think that Bill Clinton should have been impeached for his
relations with his intern. However, I do feel what he done was wrong,
disgusting, immoral, and dishonest.
When Bill Clinton played his word games and played the American public for
fools, that is when I started to hate his actions and supported what ever
the republicans done to him.
It is amazing also how liberals claim Bush is a criminal
How they forget, Bill Clinton was a fugitive and had to get a pardon from
Jimmy Carter.
Of course, if you claim it, it must be true, huh?
Cordially, Marie
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
16 Oct 2003 04:41:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue 14 Oct 2003 08:37:35p, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:lfednUC0T-9bCxGiU-KYhA@comcast.com:
I too, didn't think that Bill Clinton should have been impeached for his
relations with his intern.
He should have been inpeached for the plethora of other things he did like
selling military secrets to the Chinese and then accepting campaign
donations from them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
16 Oct 2003 07:17:34 PM |
|
|
<Snubis> wrote in message
news:3d212600eb4501ae7f83fda787f62455@news.teranews.com...
On Tue 14 Oct 2003 08:37:35p, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:lfednUC0T-9bCxGiU-KYhA@comcast.com:
I too, didn't think that Bill Clinton should have been impeached for his
relations with his intern.
He should have been inpeached for the plethora of other things he did like
selling military secrets to the Chinese and then accepting campaign
donations from them.
Now that I totally agree with. I would much rather have seen them be more
aggressive on that, than over his whores
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
16 Oct 2003 10:54:36 PM |
|
|
In article <duidncOsqb2LqBKiRVn-gw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I too, didn't think that Bill Clinton should have been impeached for his
relations with his intern.
He should have been inpeached for the plethora of other things he did like
selling military secrets to the Chinese and then accepting campaign
donations from them.
Now that I totally agree with. I would much rather have seen them be more
aggressive on that, than over his whores
I don't think it was established that they were "whores," but are no
doubt an expert...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
16 Oct 2003 11:17:38 PM |
|
|
Snubis <Snubis> wrote:
On Tue 14 Oct 2003 08:37:35p, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:lfednUC0T-9bCxGiU-KYhA@comcast.com:
I too, didn't think that Bill Clinton should have been impeached for his
relations with his intern.
He should have been inpeached for the plethora of other things he did like
selling military secrets to the Chinese and then accepting campaign
donations from them.
And you should be imprisoned for stealing state secrets and working as
a spy for al Qaeda.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
16 Oct 2003 11:48:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri 17 Oct 2003 12:17:38a, (Ray Fischer) wrote
in news:bmnqh1$kh7$1@bolt.sonic.net:
And you should be imprisoned for stealing state secrets and working as
a spy for al Qaeda.
Not even God knows what the ***** you're talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
17 Oct 2003 07:32:06 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:48:28 +0000, Snubis wrote:
On Fri 17 Oct 2003 12:17:38a, (Ray Fischer) wrote
in news:bmnqh1$kh7$1@bolt.sonic.net:
And you should be imprisoned for stealing state secrets and working as
a spy for al Qaeda.
Not even God knows what the ***** you're talking about.
of course i know.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
17 Oct 2003 10:50:47 PM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
And you should be imprisoned for stealing state secrets and working as
a spy for al Qaeda.
Not even God knows what the ***** you're talking about.
Certainly you are too damn stupid to recognize your own sleazy tactics
used againt you. I suppose it's part of being a right-wing fanatic:
stupidity and an utter lack of morals.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
15 Oct 2003 06:43:26 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:37:35 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:g94povs200gb6incdvnfph75mfo47n6pth@4ax.com...
On 14 Oct 2003 13:44:11 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<g99cnvob7prgsdhaqv6i6stknifjjqsmak@4ax.com>...
Snubis <Snubis> wrote:
... it wouldn't matter if the president got caught *****-boning his own
daughter, liberal apologists would run out the same trite
rationalizations
Rest assured, if Bush was caught doing that, we'd criticize it. Just
as we criticized Clinton for lying about sex.
Really, Greg? When did the democrats ever criticize Bubba for anything
he did, much lees for perjuring himself? Your crowd came up with every
excuse known to man defending this vile *****, both before he was
impeached, after he was impeached and continue defending him to this
very day. We have long memories, Greg, of how you leftists circled the
wagons around this mountebank, so just cut the revisionist claptrap.
And just a few of the excuses your crowd came up with were listed
right above in the original post.
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
And it wouldn't have been the subject of impeachment hearings if Clinton
didn't commit perjury.
Oh, did you think that there was only one article of impeachment?
You know, in many companies, sexual harrassment suits could be filed against
a CEO's for having sexual relationships with their secretary's and/or
interns.
But Monica wasn't complaining. Or are you claiming that some
unspecified third party can sue?
Amazing how people expected Bill Clinton to just get away with it because he
is "Bill Clinton"
You notice now, that Bill Clinton doesn't have the affect he used to have on
people. Example: His appearance in California certainly didn't help out
Davis. It is a good sign that this country is getting the Clinton's out of
our lives.
I too, didn't think that Bill Clinton should have been impeached for his
relations with his intern. However, I do feel what he done was wrong,
disgusting, immoral, and dishonest.
When Bill Clinton played his word games and played the American public for
fools, that is when I started to hate his actions and supported what ever
the republicans done to him.
Ah, you claim you haven't always been a right-wing whacko?
It is amazing also how liberals claim Bush is a criminal
How they forget, Bill Clinton was a fugitive and had to get a pardon from
Jimmy Carter.
Huh? What have you been smoking?
Of course, if you claim it, it must be true, huh?
Cordially, Marie
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
15 Oct 2003 07:02:24 PM |
|
|
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:1nmrovkrsppllv7e1mb57ngpt8o0hbp6qh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:37:35 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:g94povs200gb6incdvnfph75mfo47n6pth@4ax.com...
On 14 Oct 2003 13:44:11 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<g99cnvob7prgsdhaqv6i6stknifjjqsmak@4ax.com>...
Snubis <Snubis> wrote:
... it wouldn't matter if the president got caught *****-boning his
own
daughter, liberal apologists would run out the same trite
rationalizations
Rest assured, if Bush was caught doing that, we'd criticize it. Just
as we criticized Clinton for lying about sex.
Really, Greg? When did the democrats ever criticize Bubba for anything
he did, much lees for perjuring himself? Your crowd came up with every
excuse known to man defending this vile *****, both before he was
impeached, after he was impeached and continue defending him to this
very day. We have long memories, Greg, of how you leftists circled the
wagons around this mountebank, so just cut the revisionist claptrap.
And just a few of the excuses your crowd came up with were listed
right above in the original post.
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
And it wouldn't have been the subject of impeachment hearings if Clinton
didn't commit perjury.
Oh, did you think that there was only one article of impeachment?
Fact is, Bill Clinton put himself into the position he was in. No, I am not
happy about it, I was not happy that republicans pushed it so far. However,
I know that Bill Clinton made a stupid decision and he put himself into the
position he got into.
You know, in many companies, sexual harrassment suits could be filed
against
a CEO's for having sexual relationships with their secretary's and/or
interns.
But Monica wasn't complaining.
Doesn't matter, it is not ethical and it was wrong.
You do realize it was wrong don't you? Or don't you care about right and
wrong?
Or are you claiming that some
unspecified third party can sue?
I am claiming that if someone wanted to push it, yes they could
If they had proof that she was sleeping with the boss, and she was receiving
ANY preferential treatment what so ever, there can be a law suit filed.
Amazing how people expected Bill Clinton to just get away with it because
he
is "Bill Clinton"
You notice now, that Bill Clinton doesn't have the affect he used to have
on
people. Example: His appearance in California certainly didn't help out
Davis. It is a good sign that this country is getting the Clinton's out
of
our lives.
I too, didn't think that Bill Clinton should have been impeached for his
relations with his intern. However, I do feel what he done was wrong,
disgusting, immoral, and dishonest.
When Bill Clinton played his word games and played the American public
for
fools, that is when I started to hate his actions and supported what ever
the republicans done to him.
Ah, you claim you haven't always been a right-wing whacko?
It is amazing also how liberals claim Bush is a criminal
How they forget, Bill Clinton was a fugitive and had to get a pardon from
Jimmy Carter.
Huh? What have you been smoking?
1977
Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting all
contractual conditions of registering for the draft. Given Selective Service
Number 3 26 46 228.
Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.
Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.
Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the
military.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army
Reserves on August 07,1969 under authority of Col.E.Holmes.
Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.
Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of
Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with Army
Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject to
arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) "registrant who has failed to
report....remain liable for induction".
Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1,1969, but
anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is INELIGIBLE!
Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice under
Public Law 90-40.
Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a fugitive
from justice.
Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from President Jimmy
Carter.
Bill Clinton is the (FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON) ever to serve as
President.
All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public laws, and
various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by
Clinton.
Of course, if you claim it, it must be true, huh?
Cordially, Marie
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
16 Oct 2003 07:16:00 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:02:24 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:1nmrovkrsppllv7e1mb57ngpt8o0hbp6qh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:37:35 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:g94povs200gb6incdvnfph75mfo47n6pth@4ax.com...
On 14 Oct 2003 13:44:11 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<g99cnvob7prgsdhaqv6i6stknifjjqsmak@4ax.com>...
Snubis <Snubis> wrote:
... it wouldn't matter if the president got caught *****-boning his
own
daughter, liberal apologists would run out the same trite
rationalizations
Rest assured, if Bush was caught doing that, we'd criticize it. Just
as we criticized Clinton for lying about sex.
Really, Greg? When did the democrats ever criticize Bubba for anything
he did, much lees for perjuring himself? Your crowd came up with every
excuse known to man defending this vile *****, both before he was
impeached, after he was impeached and continue defending him to this
very day. We have long memories, Greg, of how you leftists circled the
wagons around this mountebank, so just cut the revisionist claptrap.
And just a few of the excuses your crowd came up with were listed
right above in the original post.
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
And it wouldn't have been the subject of impeachment hearings if Clinton
didn't commit perjury.
Oh, did you think that there was only one article of impeachment?
Fact is, Bill Clinton put himself into the position he was in. No, I am not
happy about it, I was not happy that republicans pushed it so far. However,
I know that Bill Clinton made a stupid decision and he put himself into the
position he got into.
Osprey nimbly tapdances away, avoiding an actual response.
You know, in many companies, sexual harrassment suits could be filed
against
a CEO's for having sexual relationships with their secretary's and/or
interns.
But Monica wasn't complaining.
Doesn't matter, it is not ethical and it was wrong.
Another tapdance. So why the talk of sexual harassment suits?
You do realize it was wrong don't you? Or don't you care about right and
wrong?
Or are you claiming that some
unspecified third party can sue?
I am claiming that if someone wanted to push it, yes they could
Interesting legal theory. Got anything to back it up? Or is this
just more Osprey *****?
If they had proof that she was sleeping with the boss, and she was receiving
ANY preferential treatment what so ever, there can be a law suit filed.
Ah, now you are talking about somebody else who can make a credible
claim to having suffered injury? Who might that be? Linda, because
nobody would want to have to look at that face?
Amazing how people expected Bill Clinton to just get away with it because
he
is "Bill Clinton"
You notice now, that Bill Clinton doesn't have the affect he used to have
on
people. Example: His appearance in California certainly didn't help out
Davis. It is a good sign that this country is getting the Clinton's out
of
our lives.
I too, didn't think that Bill Clinton should have been impeached for his
relations with his intern. However, I do feel what he done was wrong,
disgusting, immoral, and dishonest.
When Bill Clinton played his word games and played the American public
for
fools, that is when I started to hate his actions and supported what ever
the republicans done to him.
Ah, you claim you haven't always been a right-wing whacko?
It is amazing also how liberals claim Bush is a criminal
How they forget, Bill Clinton was a fugitive and had to get a pardon from
Jimmy Carter.
Huh? What have you been smoking?
1977
Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting all
contractual conditions of registering for the draft. Given Selective Service
Number 3 26 46 228.
Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.
Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.
Hmm. And when did he have a pre-induction physical? Doesn't look
like enough time between March and July to get an order for a
pre-induction physical, have it, and have the draft board issue an
induction notice.
Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the
military.
How the hell do you 'dishonor' an order to report?
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army
Reserves on August 07,1969 under authority of Col.E.Holmes.
Hmm. I thought it was an ROTC unit. A cadet is not a member of the
Reserve.
Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.
Not for an ROTC unit.
Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of
Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.
Ah, so it WAS an ROTC unit. Not a 'duty station'.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with Army
Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject to
arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) "registrant who has failed to
report....remain liable for induction".
Acoording to which right-wing whacko web site?
Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1,1969, but
anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is INELIGIBLE!
Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice under
Public Law 90-40.
And the Feebs couldn't find him? I didn't think they were that
incompetent.
Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a fugitive
from justice.
And the Feebs still couldn't find him?
Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from President Jimmy
Carter.
Bill Clinton is the (FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON) ever to serve as
President.
All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public laws, and
various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by
Clinton.
And you have not refuted the claim that you eat hot dogs through your
ears.
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
16 Oct 2003 07:21:43 PM |
|
|
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:kkcuovks6n5l5eibvp4ktu5pjvvtfvbsji@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:02:24 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:1nmrovkrsppllv7e1mb57ngpt8o0hbp6qh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:37:35 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote
in
message news:g94povs200gb6incdvnfph75mfo47n6pth@4ax.com...
On 14 Oct 2003 13:44:11 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<g99cnvob7prgsdhaqv6i6stknifjjqsmak@4ax.com>...
Snubis <Snubis> wrote:
... it wouldn't matter if the president got caught *****-boning
his
own
daughter, liberal apologists would run out the same trite
rationalizations
Rest assured, if Bush was caught doing that, we'd criticize it.
Just
as we criticized Clinton for lying about sex.
Really, Greg? When did the democrats ever criticize Bubba for
anything
he did, much lees for perjuring himself? Your crowd came up with
every
excuse known to man defending this vile *****, both before he was
impeached, after he was impeached and continue defending him to
this
very day. We have long memories, Greg, of how you leftists circled
the
wagons around this mountebank, so just cut the revisionist
claptrap.
And just a few of the excuses your crowd came up with were listed
right above in the original post.
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
And it wouldn't have been the subject of impeachment hearings if
Clinton
didn't commit perjury.
Oh, did you think that there was only one article of impeachment?
Fact is, Bill Clinton put himself into the position he was in. No, I am
not
happy about it, I was not happy that republicans pushed it so far.
However,
I know that Bill Clinton made a stupid decision and he put himself into
the
position he got into.
Osprey nimbly tapdances away, avoiding an actual response.
Whats wrong Lawrence? Afraid to face the truth that Bill Clinton made the
decision and put himself into the position?
You know, in many companies, sexual harrassment suits could be filed
against
a CEO's for having sexual relationships with their secretary's and/or
interns.
But Monica wasn't complaining.
Doesn't matter, it is not ethical and it was wrong.
Another tapdance. So why the talk of sexual harassment suits?
Actually what I should have said instead of harassment was sexual
discrimination suits
Amazing how you tapdance around admitting what Billy done was wrong.
Do you think it was right?
You do realize it was wrong don't you? Or don't you care about right and
wrong?
Or are you claiming that some
unspecified third party can sue?
I am claiming that if someone wanted to push it, yes they could
Interesting legal theory. Got anything to back it up? Or is this
just more Osprey *****?
EOC
Contact them and get all the information you would like on sexual
discrimination
If they had proof that she was sleeping with the boss, and she was
receiving
ANY preferential treatment what so ever, there can be a law suit filed.
Ah, now you are talking about somebody else who can make a credible
claim to having suffered injury? Who might that be? Linda, because
nobody would want to have to look at that face?
Amazing how people expected Bill Clinton to just get away with it
because
he
is "Bill Clinton"
You notice now, that Bill Clinton doesn't have the affect he used to
have
on
people. Example: His appearance in California certainly didn't help
out
Davis. It is a good sign that this country is getting the Clinton's
out
of
our lives.
I too, didn't think that Bill Clinton should have been impeached for
his
relations with his intern. However, I do feel what he done was wrong,
disgusting, immoral, and dishonest.
When Bill Clinton played his word games and played the American public
for
fools, that is when I started to hate his actions and supported what
ever
the republicans done to him.
Ah, you claim you haven't always been a right-wing whacko?
It is amazing also how liberals claim Bush is a criminal
How they forget, Bill Clinton was a fugitive and had to get a pardon
from
Jimmy Carter.
Huh? What have you been smoking?
1977
Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting all
contractual conditions of registering for the draft. Given Selective
Service
Number 3 26 46 228.
Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.
Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.
Hmm. And when did he have a pre-induction physical? Doesn't look
like enough time between March and July to get an order for a
pre-induction physical, have it, and have the draft board issue an
induction notice.
Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the
military.
How the hell do you 'dishonor' an order to report?
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army
Reserves on August 07,1969 under authority of Col.E.Holmes.
Hmm. I thought it was an ROTC unit. A cadet is not a member of the
Reserve.
Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.
Not for an ROTC unit.
Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of
Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.
Ah, so it WAS an ROTC unit. Not a 'duty station'.
You are stupid aren't you
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with
Army
Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject
to
arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) "registrant who has failed to
report....remain liable for induction".
Acoording to which right-wing whacko web site?
Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1,1969,
but
anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is
INELIGIBLE!
Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice
under
Public Law 90-40.
And the Feebs couldn't find him? I didn't think they were that
incompetent.
Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a fugitive
from justice.
And the Feebs still couldn't find him?
Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from President Jimmy
Carter.
Bill Clinton is the (FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON) ever to serve as
President.
All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public laws,
and
various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by
Clinton.
And you have not refuted the claim that you eat hot dogs through your
ears.
Talk about tap dancing, you just made Sammy Davis look like a amatuer
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
16 Oct 2003 10:44:30 PM |
|
|
In article <AdednVG8OemNqxKiRVn-tw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:kkcuovks6n5l5eibvp4ktu5pjvvtfvbsji@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:02:24 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:1nmrovkrsppllv7e1mb57ngpt8o0hbp6qh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:37:35 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote
in
message news:g94povs200gb6incdvnfph75mfo47n6pth@4ax.com...
On 14 Oct 2003 13:44:11 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<g99cnvob7prgsdhaqv6i6stknifjjqsmak@4ax.com>...
Snubis <Snubis> wrote:
... it wouldn't matter if the president got caught *****-boning
his
own
daughter, liberal apologists would run out the same trite
rationalizations
Rest assured, if Bush was caught doing that, we'd criticize it.
Just
as we criticized Clinton for lying about sex.
Really, Greg? When did the democrats ever criticize Bubba for
anything
he did, much lees for perjuring himself? Your crowd came up with
every
excuse known to man defending this vile *****, both before he was
impeached, after he was impeached and continue defending him to
this
very day. We have long memories, Greg, of how you leftists circled
the
wagons around this mountebank, so just cut the revisionist
claptrap.
And just a few of the excuses your crowd came up with were listed
right above in the original post.
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
And it wouldn't have been the subject of impeachment hearings if
Clinton
didn't commit perjury.
Oh, did you think that there was only one article of impeachment?
Fact is, Bill Clinton put himself into the position he was in. No, I am
not
happy about it, I was not happy that republicans pushed it so far.
However,
I know that Bill Clinton made a stupid decision and he put himself into
the
position he got into.
Osprey nimbly tapdances away, avoiding an actual response.
Whats wrong Lawrence? Afraid to face the truth that Bill Clinton made the
decision and put himself into the position?
That is like blaming the victim of a crime for "putting himself in that
position" by walking down an alley.
You know, in many companies, sexual harrassment suits could be filed
against
a CEO's for having sexual relationships with their secretary's and/or
interns.
But Monica wasn't complaining.
Doesn't matter, it is not ethical and it was wrong.
Another tapdance. So why the talk of sexual harassment suits?
Actually what I should have said instead of harassment was sexual
discrimination suits
Amazing how you tapdance around admitting what Billy done was wrong.
Do you think it was right?
What did he do, EXACTLY, that bothers you so much?
You do realize it was wrong don't you? Or don't you care about right and
wrong?
Or are you claiming that some
unspecified third party can sue?
I am claiming that if someone wanted to push it, yes they could
Interesting legal theory. Got anything to back it up? Or is this
just more Osprey *****?
EOC
Contact them and get all the information you would like on sexual
discrimination
Who was discriminated against?
If they had proof that she was sleeping with the boss, and she was
receiving
ANY preferential treatment what so ever, there can be a law suit filed.
Ah, now you are talking about somebody else who can make a credible
claim to having suffered injury? Who might that be? Linda, because
nobody would want to have to look at that face?
Amazing how people expected Bill Clinton to just get away with it
because
he
is "Bill Clinton"
You notice now, that Bill Clinton doesn't have the affect he used to
have
on
people. Example: His appearance in California certainly didn't help
out
Davis. It is a good sign that this country is getting the Clinton's
out
of
our lives.
I too, didn't think that Bill Clinton should have been impeached for
his
relations with his intern. However, I do feel what he done was wrong,
disgusting, immoral, and dishonest.
When Bill Clinton played his word games and played the American public
for
fools, that is when I started to hate his actions and supported what
ever
the republicans done to him.
Ah, you claim you haven't always been a right-wing whacko?
It is amazing also how liberals claim Bush is a criminal
How they forget, Bill Clinton was a fugitive and had to get a pardon
from
Jimmy Carter.
Huh? What have you been smoking?
1977
Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting all
contractual conditions of registering for the draft. Given Selective
Service
Number 3 26 46 228.
Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.
Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.
Hmm. And when did he have a pre-induction physical? Doesn't look
like enough time between March and July to get an order for a
pre-induction physical, have it, and have the draft board issue an
induction notice.
Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the
military.
How the hell do you 'dishonor' an order to report?
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army
Reserves on August 07,1969 under authority of Col.E.Holmes.
Hmm. I thought it was an ROTC unit. A cadet is not a member of the
Reserve.
Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.
Not for an ROTC unit.
Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of
Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.
Ah, so it WAS an ROTC unit. Not a 'duty station'.
You are stupid aren't you
You always say that when people make you look like a fool.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
17 Oct 2003 04:58:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:21:43 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:kkcuovks6n5l5eibvp4ktu5pjvvtfvbsji@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:02:24 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:1nmrovkrsppllv7e1mb57ngpt8o0hbp6qh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:37:35 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote
in
message news:g94povs200gb6incdvnfph75mfo47n6pth@4ax.com...
On 14 Oct 2003 13:44:11 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<g99cnvob7prgsdhaqv6i6stknifjjqsmak@4ax.com>...
Snubis <Snubis> wrote:
... it wouldn't matter if the president got caught *****-boning
his
own
daughter, liberal apologists would run out the same trite
rationalizations
Rest assured, if Bush was caught doing that, we'd criticize it.
Just
as we criticized Clinton for lying about sex.
Really, Greg? When did the democrats ever criticize Bubba for
anything
he did, much lees for perjuring himself? Your crowd came up with
every
excuse known to man defending this vile *****, both before he was
impeached, after he was impeached and continue defending him to
this
very day. We have long memories, Greg, of how you leftists circled
the
wagons around this mountebank, so just cut the revisionist
claptrap.
And just a few of the excuses your crowd came up with were listed
right above in the original post.
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
And it wouldn't have been the subject of impeachment hearings if
Clinton
didn't commit perjury.
Oh, did you think that there was only one article of impeachment?
Fact is, Bill Clinton put himself into the position he was in. No, I am
not
happy about it, I was not happy that republicans pushed it so far.
However,
I know that Bill Clinton made a stupid decision and he put himself into
the
position he got into.
Osprey nimbly tapdances away, avoiding an actual response.
Whats wrong Lawrence? Afraid to face the truth that Bill Clinton made the
decision and put himself into the position?
Nope, just amused at the way you tapdance when you are asked to defend
one of you idiotic statements.
You know, in many companies, sexual harrassment suits could be filed
against
a CEO's for having sexual relationships with their secretary's and/or
interns.
But Monica wasn't complaining.
Doesn't matter, it is not ethical and it was wrong.
Another tapdance. So why the talk of sexual harassment suits?
Actually what I should have said instead of harassment was sexual
discrimination suits
Actually, you were on stronger ground with discrimination. A third
party who could claim that they lost out to Monica could sue. Third
parties can't sue for harassment.
Amazing how you tapdance around admitting what Billy done was wrong.
Do you think it was right?
Can you point to any statement of mine that makes that a relevent
question?
You do realize it was wrong don't you? Or don't you care about right and
wrong?
Or are you claiming that some
unspecified third party can sue?
I am claiming that if someone wanted to push it, yes they could
Interesting legal theory. Got anything to back it up? Or is this
just more Osprey *****?
EOC
Contact them and get all the information you would like on sexual
discrimination
Looks like you don't have anything to back it up. Oh well, we are
used to that.
If they had proof that she was sleeping with the boss, and she was
receiving
ANY preferential treatment what so ever, there can be a law suit filed.
Ah, now you are talking about somebody else who can make a credible
claim to having suffered injury? Who might that be? Linda, because
nobody would want to have to look at that face?
Amazing how people expected Bill Clinton to just get away with it
because
he
is "Bill Clinton"
You notice now, that Bill Clinton doesn't have the affect he used to
have
on
people. Example: His appearance in California certainly didn't help
out
Davis. It is a good sign that this country is getting the Clinton's
out
of
our lives.
I too, didn't think that Bill Clinton should have been impeached for
his
relations with his intern. However, I do feel what he done was wrong,
disgusting, immoral, and dishonest.
When Bill Clinton played his word games and played the American public
for
fools, that is when I started to hate his actions and supported what
ever
the republicans done to him.
Ah, you claim you haven't always been a right-wing whacko?
It is amazing also how liberals claim Bush is a criminal
How they forget, Bill Clinton was a fugitive and had to get a pardon
from
Jimmy Carter.
Huh? What have you been smoking?
1977
Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting all
contractual conditions of registering for the draft. Given Selective
Service
Number 3 26 46 228.
Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.
Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.
Hmm. And when did he have a pre-induction physical? Doesn't look
like enough time between March and July to get an order for a
pre-induction physical, have it, and have the draft board issue an
induction notice.
No response?
Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the
military.
How the hell do you 'dishonor' an order to report?
No response?
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army
Reserves on August 07,1969 under authority of Col.E.Holmes.
Hmm. I thought it was an ROTC unit. A cadet is not a member of the
Reserve.
No response?
Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.
Not for an ROTC unit.
No response?
Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of
Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.
Ah, so it WAS an ROTC unit. Not a 'duty station'.
You are stupid aren't you
No response. And no responses further down, either.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with
Army
Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject
to
arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) "registrant who has failed to
report....remain liable for induction".
Acoording to which right-wing whacko web site?
Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1,1969,
but
anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is
INELIGIBLE!
Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice
under
Public Law 90-40.
And the Feebs couldn't find him? I didn't think they were that
incompetent.
Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a fugitive
from justice.
And the Feebs still couldn't find him?
Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from President Jimmy
Carter.
Bill Clinton is the (FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON) ever to serve as
President.
All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public laws,
and
various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by
Clinton.
And you have not refuted the claim that you eat hot dogs through your
ears.
Talk about tap dancing, you just made Sammy Davis look like a amatuer
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
17 Oct 2003 05:33:21 PM |
|
|
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:i6p0pvo88t6l2gsch3jdhssec3hml5fo7f@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:21:43 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:kkcuovks6n5l5eibvp4ktu5pjvvtfvbsji@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:02:24 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote
in
message news:1nmrovkrsppllv7e1mb57ngpt8o0hbp6qh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:37:35 -0400, "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net>
wrote
in
message news:g94povs200gb6incdvnfph75mfo47n6pth@4ax.com...
On 14 Oct 2003 13:44:11 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<g99cnvob7prgsdhaqv6i6stknifjjqsmak@4ax.com>...
Snubis <Snubis> wrote:
... it wouldn't matter if the president got caught *****-boning
his
own
daughter, liberal apologists would run out the same trite
rationalizations
Rest assured, if Bush was caught doing that, we'd criticize
it.
Just
as we criticized Clinton for lying about sex.
Really, Greg? When did the democrats ever criticize Bubba for
anything
he did, much lees for perjuring himself? Your crowd came up with
every
excuse known to man defending this vile *****, both before he
was
impeached, after he was impeached and continue defending him to
this
very day. We have long memories, Greg, of how you leftists
circled
the
wagons around this mountebank, so just cut the revisionist
claptrap.
And just a few of the excuses your crowd came up with were
listed
right above in the original post.
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think
it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
And it wouldn't have been the subject of impeachment hearings if
Clinton
didn't commit perjury.
Oh, did you think that there was only one article of impeachment?
Fact is, Bill Clinton put himself into the position he was in. No, I
am
not
happy about it, I was not happy that republicans pushed it so far.
However,
I know that Bill Clinton made a stupid decision and he put himself
into
the
position he got into.
Osprey nimbly tapdances away, avoiding an actual response.
Whats wrong Lawrence? Afraid to face the truth that Bill Clinton made
the
decision and put himself into the position?
Nope, just amused at the way you tapdance when you are asked to defend
one of you idiotic statements.
I have nothing to tapdance about.
Bill Clinton put himself into that position. Both parties were wrong, but
the point here is that liberals simply refuse to accept ANY responsibility
to their own failures. They want to put all of it on republicans.
You know, in many companies, sexual harrassment suits could be
filed
against
a CEO's for having sexual relationships with their secretary's
and/or
interns.
But Monica wasn't complaining.
Doesn't matter, it is not ethical and it was wrong.
Another tapdance. So why the talk of sexual harassment suits?
Actually what I should have said instead of harassment was sexual
discrimination suits
Actually, you were on stronger ground with discrimination. A third
party who could claim that they lost out to Monica could sue. Third
parties can't sue for harassment.
Amazing how you tapdance around admitting what Billy done was wrong.
Do you think it was right?
Can you point to any statement of mine that makes that a relevent
question?
What were you saying about tapdancing?
You do realize it was wrong don't you? Or don't you care about right
and
wrong?
Or are you claiming that some
unspecified third party can sue?
I am claiming that if someone wanted to push it, yes they could
Interesting legal theory. Got anything to back it up? Or is this
just more Osprey *****?
EOC
Contact them and get all the information you would like on sexual
discrimination
Looks like you don't have anything to back it up. Oh well, we are
used to that.
I just gave you the reference.
If they had proof that she was sleeping with the boss, and she was
receiving
ANY preferential treatment what so ever, there can be a law suit
filed.
Ah, now you are talking about somebody else who can make a credible
claim to having suffered injury? Who might that be? Linda, because
nobody would want to have to look at that face?
Amazing how people expected Bill Clinton to just get away with it
because
he
is "Bill Clinton"
You notice now, that Bill Clinton doesn't have the affect he used
to
have
on
people. Example: His appearance in California certainly didn't
help
out
Davis. It is a good sign that this country is getting the
Clinton's
out
of
our lives.
I too, didn't think that Bill Clinton should have been impeached
for
his
relations with his intern. However, I do feel what he done was
wrong,
disgusting, immoral, and dishonest.
When Bill Clinton played his word games and played the American
public
for
fools, that is when I started to hate his actions and supported
what
ever
the republicans done to him.
Ah, you claim you haven't always been a right-wing whacko?
It is amazing also how liberals claim Bush is a criminal
How they forget, Bill Clinton was a fugitive and had to get a
pardon
from
Jimmy Carter.
Huh? What have you been smoking?
1977
Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting
all
contractual conditions of registering for the draft. Given Selective
Service
Number 3 26 46 228.
Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.
Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.
Hmm. And when did he have a pre-induction physical? Doesn't look
like enough time between March and July to get an order for a
pre-induction physical, have it, and have the draft board issue an
induction notice.
No response?
All the information is available to the public. There is nothing for me to
have to respond too. You are simply proving my point I made earlier about
liberals.
You are looking to defend Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the
military.
How the hell do you 'dishonor' an order to report?
No response?
Read above
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States
Army
Reserves on August 07,1969 under authority of Col.E.Holmes.
Hmm. I thought it was an ROTC unit. A cadet is not a member of the
Reserve.
No response?
Read above
Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.
Not for an ROTC unit.
No response?
Read above
Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of
Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.
Ah, so it WAS an ROTC unit. Not a 'duty station'.
You are stupid aren't you
No response. And no responses further down, either.
Read above
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with
Army
Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and
subject
to
arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) "registrant who has failed to
report....remain liable for induction".
Acoording to which right-wing whacko web site?
Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December
1,1969,
but
anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is
INELIGIBLE!
Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice
under
Public Law 90-40.
And the Feebs couldn't find him? I didn't think they were that
incompetent.
Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a
fugitive
from justice.
And the Feebs still couldn't find him?
Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from President Jimmy
Carter.
Bill Clinton is the (FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON) ever to serve as
President.
All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public
laws,
and
various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by
Clinton.
And you have not refuted the claim that you eat hot dogs through your
ears.
Talk about tap dancing, you just made Sammy Davis look like a amatuer
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservative Apologists |
16 Oct 2003 08:06:42 AM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Fact is, Bill Clinton put himself into the position he was in. No, I am not
happy about it, I was not happy that republicans pushed it so far. However,
I know that Bill Clinton made a stupid decision and he put himself into the
position he got into.
And if you get investigated and have your private information posted
to the net then I imagine you won't be happy about that either, but at
least you'll know that you put yourself into that position.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
15 Oct 2003 09:54:45 AM |
|
|
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<g94povs200gb6incdvnfph75mfo47n6pth@4ax.com>...
On 14 Oct 2003 13:44:11 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<g99cnvob7prgsdhaqv6i6stknifjjqsmak@4ax.com>...
Snubis <Snubis> wrote:
... it wouldn't matter if the president got caught *****-boning his own
daughter, liberal apologists would run out the same trite rationalizations
Rest assured, if Bush was caught doing that, we'd criticize it. Just
as we criticized Clinton for lying about sex.
Really, Greg? When did the democrats ever criticize Bubba for anything
he did, much lees for perjuring himself? Your crowd came up with every
excuse known to man defending this vile *****, both before he was
impeached, after he was impeached and continue defending him to this
very day. We have long memories, Greg, of how you leftists circled the
wagons around this mountebank, so just cut the revisionist claptrap.
And just a few of the excuses your crowd came up with were listed
right above in the original post.
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
Of course, if you claim it, it must be true, huh?
That's right, Larry, they sure did. One might say that that these
liberal democrat critics were so strong in their aversion to his low
character and criminal ways that they re-elected him and coronated him
a saint shortly after he was impeached.
Cordially, Marie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
15 Oct 2003 06:48:18 PM |
|
|
On 15 Oct 2003 07:54:45 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<g94povs200gb6incdvnfph75mfo47n6pth@4ax.com>...
On 14 Oct 2003 13:44:11 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
[snip...
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
Of course, if you claim it, it must be true, huh?
That's right, Larry, they sure did. One might say that that these
liberal democrat critics were so strong in their aversion to his low
character and criminal ways that they re-elected him and coronated him
a saint shortly after he was impeached.
Hmm. When was he last elected? When was the impeachment? Do you
even have a nodding acquaintance with any facts?
Cordially, Marie
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
16 Oct 2003 10:37:47 AM |
|
|
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<12nrovc84b686tkh0kfa3knnu68puna0lb@4ax.com>...
On 15 Oct 2003 07:54:45 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<g94povs200gb6incdvnfph75mfo47n6pth@4ax.com>...
On 14 Oct 2003 13:44:11 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
[snip...
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
Of course, if you claim it, it must be true, huh?
That's right, Larry, they sure did. One might say that that these
liberal democrat critics were so strong in their aversion to his low
character and criminal ways that they re-elected him and coronated him
a saint shortly after he was impeached.
Hmm. When was he last elected? When was the impeachment? Do you
even have a nodding acquaintance with any facts?
I just stated the facts, Larry, and you chose to slough them off.
Liberals supported Clinton to the bitter end through all of his
immoral, criminal activities, and your crowd supports him to this very
day. You also laughed off his impeachment. What in the hell does when
it occurred have with to do with the argument being made? If I asked
you "when" Rush abused drugs, would you accept my argument that we
should forget it because it happened in the past? What was the point,
if any, you were attempting to make here?
Cordially, Marie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
18 Oct 2003 01:38:38 AM |
|
|
In article <1dc521ed.0310160737.654410f0@posting.google.com>,
LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com says...
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
Of course, if you claim it, it must be true, huh?
That's right, Larry, they sure did. One might say that that these
liberal democrat critics were so strong in their aversion to his low
character and criminal ways that they re-elected him and coronated him
a saint shortly after he was impeached.
Hmm. When was he last elected? When was the impeachment? Do you
even have a nodding acquaintance with any facts?
I just stated the facts, Larry, and you chose to slough them off.
What facts?
Above you claimed that Clinton was re-elected [by implication,
President] AFTER the impeachment.
The impeachment was in the winter of 1998/99, and the next presidential
election after that was in the Autumn of 2000... where Clinton did not
even stand as a candidate!
=================================
A Clinton Timeline
WASHINGTON, Jan. 12, 2001
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/08/politics/main262484.shtml
=================================
Now then, Marie... you know these *facts* that you claimed to have
posted above...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
18 Oct 2003 01:39:05 AM |
|
|
In article <1dc521ed.0310160737.654410f0@posting.google.com>,
LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com says...
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
Of course, if you claim it, it must be true, huh?
That's right, Larry, they sure did. One might say that that these
liberal democrat critics were so strong in their aversion to his low
character and criminal ways that they re-elected him and coronated him
a saint shortly after he was impeached.
Hmm. When was he last elected? When was the impeachment? Do you
even have a nodding acquaintance with any facts?
I just stated the facts, Larry, and you chose to slough them off.
What facts?
Above you claimed that Clinton was re-elected [by implication,
President] AFTER the impeachment.
The impeachment was in the winter of 1998/99, and the next presidential
election after that was in the Autumn of 2000... where Clinton did not
even stand as a candidate!
=================================
A Clinton Timeline
WASHINGTON, Jan. 12, 2001
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/08/politics/main262484.shtml
=================================
Now then, Marie... you know these *facts* that you claimed to have
posted above...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
16 Oct 2003 10:50:22 PM |
|
|
In article <1dc521ed.0310160737.654410f0@posting.google.com>, Marie A.
<> wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:<12nrovc84b686tkh0kfa3knnu68puna0lb@4ax.com>...
On 15 Oct 2003 07:54:45 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:<g94povs200gb6incdvnfph75mfo47n6pth@4ax.com>...
On 14 Oct 2003 13:44:11 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
[snip...
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
Of course, if you claim it, it must be true, huh?
That's right, Larry, they sure did. One might say that that these
liberal democrat critics were so strong in their aversion to his low
character and criminal ways that they re-elected him and coronated him
a saint shortly after he was impeached.
Hmm. When was he last elected? When was the impeachment? Do you
even have a nodding acquaintance with any facts?
I just stated the facts, Larry, and you chose to slough them off.
Liberals supported Clinton to the bitter end through all of his
immoral,
I didn't find them to be "immoral." Who said you get to decide what is
immoral?
criminal activities,
He was found NOT GUILTY. (Isn't lying "immoral?")
and your crowd supports him to this very
day.
He did nothing wrong.
You also laughed off his impeachment.
Impeachment is nothing. He was acquitted.
What in the hell does when
it occurred have with to do with the argument being made? If I asked
you "when" Rush abused drugs, would you accept my argument that we
should forget it because it happened in the past?
Why? That is illogical, unlike the argument for Clinton.
What was the point,
if any, you were attempting to make here?
If the Republicans had a case to make against Clinton, they would have
made it. All they have is a *****. Want immorality, crime, and
cowardice? Look to BUSH. Strange how you never address that.
And while you are at it, explain this:
<http://www.buzzflash.com/areyoubetteroff/>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Apologists |
17 Oct 2003 08:34:14 AM |
|
|
"David Barnes" <dbarnes111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:161020032050228183%dbarnes111@yahoo.com...
In article <1dc521ed.0310160737.654410f0@posting.google.com>, Marie A.
< > wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:<12nrovc84b686tkh0kfa3knnu68puna0lb@4ax.com>...
On 15 Oct 2003 07:54:45 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.net> wrote
in
message news:<g94povs200gb6incdvnfph75mfo47n6pth@4ax.com>...
On 14 Oct 2003 13:44:11 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
[snip...
Did you only read the whacko right-wing hate sites? A lot of
democrats criticized Clinton's behavior. They just didn't think it
should have been the subject of impeachment hearings.
Of course, if you claim it, it must be true, huh?
That's right, Larry, they sure did. One might say that that these
liberal democrat critics were so strong in their aversion to his low
character and criminal ways that they re-elected him and coronated
him
| | | | | | | |
