Science > Abortion > Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush?
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" |
| Date: |
18 Aug 2004 02:41:39 PM |
| Object: |
Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
.
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parsons" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 08:11:46 AM |
|
|
In article <0aednQmeooMYObncRVn-jg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote in message
news:190820040753303834%lloydparsons@spamac.com...
In article <PrGdnUsSpfFwBLncRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote in message
news:190820040704247112%lloydparsons@spamac.com...
In article <MPG.1b8df461710608e989870@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <180820042349241576%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <MPG.1b8deb278fc2610498986e@news-40.giganews.com>,
Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <180820042313338479%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <MPG.1b8dd80586082a6b98986d@news-40.giganews.com>,
Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
Nice try Jason, get some political education soon.
You are almost right here, it really wasn't about the blow
job.
It was
about 'getting' Clinton. Hillary was very correct when she
said
the
VWRC was out to get him.
That's from the education about hillary being right and the Vast
Right
Wing Conspiracy insanity. *rolls eyes*
I always enjoy rightards as they always drink the kool-aid. If
you
got
off your ***** and do some research beyond JUST the right-wing crap,
you
might learn that there is plenty something rotten on right just as
there is on the left.
One of the things that I keep seeing reinforced is that all too
many
of
the right are unwilling to see the bad things that are going on in
their groups that are literally identical in the other groups.
Its
that pompous righteousness that turns people off.
Remember its been 40 years since the Republicans were last in
control
of all 3 parts of gov't. With this bunch in there now, I think we
know
why. Unfortunately after 40 years of better gov't, we forgot why
we
threw them out 40 years ago. Now we remember, now we get to pitch
them
again....
BS. LBJ era was worse. So was Carter's. Far worse. You must be
pretty young.
Well, if 60 is young.... ;-)
I was there for all of those, the first president I remember is
Eisenhower....
The reason clinton is 'liked' by some is because he happened to be
around during the tech boom. This same crowd (a lot of usenet, btw)
holds the same thing in reverse against Bush. Even though it
started to
fall dramatically under clinton, Bush gets the blame.
The reason Clinton is liked by many is because, for all his personal
faults, he was a pretty good president. The reason the right was/is
afraid of him is because they know if it wasn't for the constitution
amendment limiting terms, he would still be President.
I doubt it. But are you suggesting that we amend the constitution?
No I wasn't making that suggestion. But as history, the Republicans
were primarily responsible for the current one limiting terms because
of FDR....
Clinton was a good president in some aspects, a horrible one in others.
He used and abused women, do you think that was good thing?
No. But I'm not convinced he did all that.
He lied and used women, the evidence is out there for anyone to see.
That is, in my opinion, using women and also I consider that abuse.
He used his power as well, he even admitted to that.
Strangely there were never
any trials over that...
I, like most Americans, knew Clinton was a scum bag when he came into
office. Most people accepted that for some reason.
And when he got caught...again...like most Americans we wanted to
continue
moving forward and not be drug into a long investigation.
But when he got on television and faced the nation and tried to redefine
sex, and out right lied to the nation..that was when I truly turned
against
Clinton and hoped he got everything he deserved.
He deserved the impeachment, and he deserved to lose his ability to be a
lawyer.
Other than spending a lot of money, all that process accomplished nada.
Well, thank Bill for that. No one told him to pull down his pants and waste
a cigar.
No you can thank the Republicans for that. The investigation was about
Whitewater and after unbelievable amounts of money spent it all came
down to a lie about a *****.
Now I don't have a problem with him getting nailed on that perjury as
he shouldn't have done it. I do have a problem with the investigation
of a failed business venture that lost him money coming down to asking
the question they KNEW he would lie about.
Sometimes I wonder if Clinton gave them that one, realizing that they
would keep on investigating him if they didn't find something.
And it appears that Clinton is destitute now that he can't be your
lawyer. LOL!!
I am not sure where you are finding humor in that, but hey...what ever
floats your boat.
The humor is that you think that him losing his law license ever
mattered. Do you think the ex-President was ever going to go into
practice?
Clinton could sell a screen door to a submarine captain. I guess if you
like
that kind running the country that is on you. I on the other hand, want
someone of character and has standards.
Right now, it doesn't appear that either party has any bragging rights.
for lots of reasons that is true. And I don't see it getting better
until we as a people insist our news sources back off the incessant
pawing through every little foible that those that chose to run might
have done in their past.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 09:40:24 AM |
|
|
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote in message
news:190820040811409280%lloydparsons@spamac.com...
In article <0aednQmeooMYObncRVn-jg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote in message
news:190820040753303834%lloydparsons@spamac.com...
In article <PrGdnUsSpfFwBLncRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote in message
news:190820040704247112%lloydparsons@spamac.com...
In article <MPG.1b8df461710608e989870@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <180820042349241576%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <MPG.1b8deb278fc2610498986e@news-40.giganews.com>,
Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <180820042313338479%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article
<MPG.1b8dd80586082a6b98986d@news-40.giganews.com>,
Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
Nice try Jason, get some political education soon.
You are almost right here, it really wasn't about the blow
job.
It was
about 'getting' Clinton. Hillary was very correct when
she
said
the
VWRC was out to get him.
That's from the education about hillary being right and the
Vast
Right
Wing Conspiracy insanity. *rolls eyes*
I always enjoy rightards as they always drink the kool-aid.
If
you
got
off your ***** and do some research beyond JUST the right-wing
crap,
you
might learn that there is plenty something rotten on right
just as
there is on the left.
One of the things that I keep seeing reinforced is that all
too
many
of
the right are unwilling to see the bad things that are going
on in
their groups that are literally identical in the other groups.
Its
that pompous righteousness that turns people off.
Remember its been 40 years since the Republicans were last in
control
of all 3 parts of gov't. With this bunch in there now, I
think we
know
why. Unfortunately after 40 years of better gov't, we forgot
why
we
threw them out 40 years ago. Now we remember, now we get to
pitch
them
again....
BS. LBJ era was worse. So was Carter's. Far worse. You must
be
pretty young.
Well, if 60 is young.... ;-)
I was there for all of those, the first president I remember is
Eisenhower....
The reason clinton is 'liked' by some is because he happened to
be
around during the tech boom. This same crowd (a lot of usenet,
btw)
holds the same thing in reverse against Bush. Even though it
started to
fall dramatically under clinton, Bush gets the blame.
The reason Clinton is liked by many is because, for all his
personal
faults, he was a pretty good president. The reason the right
was/is
afraid of him is because they know if it wasn't for the
constitution
amendment limiting terms, he would still be President.
I doubt it. But are you suggesting that we amend the constitution?
No I wasn't making that suggestion. But as history, the Republicans
were primarily responsible for the current one limiting terms because
of FDR....
Clinton was a good president in some aspects, a horrible one in
others.
He used and abused women, do you think that was good thing?
No. But I'm not convinced he did all that.
He lied and used women, the evidence is out there for anyone to see.
That is, in my opinion, using women and also I consider that abuse.
He used his power as well, he even admitted to that.
Strangely there were never
any trials over that...
I, like most Americans, knew Clinton was a scum bag when he came
into
office. Most people accepted that for some reason.
And when he got caught...again...like most Americans we wanted to
continue
moving forward and not be drug into a long investigation.
But when he got on television and faced the nation and tried to
redefine
sex, and out right lied to the nation..that was when I truly turned
against
Clinton and hoped he got everything he deserved.
He deserved the impeachment, and he deserved to lose his ability to
be a
lawyer.
Other than spending a lot of money, all that process accomplished
nada.
Well, thank Bill for that. No one told him to pull down his pants and
waste
a cigar.
No you can thank the Republicans for that.
Oh? Was it a Republican that unzipped his pants?
The investigation was about
Whitewater and after unbelievable amounts of money spent it all came
down to a lie about a *****.
If he didn't lie, there wouldn't have been an investigation.
Now I don't have a problem with him getting nailed on that perjury as
he shouldn't have done it. I do have a problem with the investigation
of a failed business venture that lost him money coming down to asking
the question they KNEW he would lie about.
Sometimes I wonder if Clinton gave them that one, realizing that they
would keep on investigating him if they didn't find something.
And it appears that Clinton is destitute now that he can't be your
lawyer. LOL!!
I am not sure where you are finding humor in that, but hey...what ever
floats your boat.
The humor is that you think that him losing his law license ever
mattered.
Ah..o.k.
Do you think the ex-President was ever going to go into
practice?
Clinton could sell a screen door to a submarine captain. I guess if
you
like
that kind running the country that is on you. I on the other hand,
want
someone of character and has standards.
Right now, it doesn't appear that either party has any bragging
rights.
for lots of reasons that is true. And I don't see it getting better
until we as a people insist our news sources back off the incessant
pawing through every little foible that those that chose to run might
have done in their past.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason McNorton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 01:16:06 PM |
|
|
In article <190820040811409280%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <0aednQmeooMYObncRVn-jg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Well, thank Bill for that. No one told him to pull down his pants and waste
a cigar.
No you can thank the Republicans for that. The investigation was about
Whitewater and after unbelievable amounts of money spent it all came
down to a lie about a *****.
Now I don't have a problem with him getting nailed on that perjury as
he shouldn't have done it. I do have a problem with the investigation
of a failed business venture that lost him money coming down to asking
the question they KNEW he would lie about.
Is this what passes for leftwing logic these days? They were going
after him on serious corruption charges and asked him abuse of power
questions which they 'knew' he'd lie about.
Ok.. So which part was the waste? And if you knew the guy was a known
pathological liar, why would you support him?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parsons" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 05:09:52 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1b8eaa63dcbd3ad0989875@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <190820040811409280%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <0aednQmeooMYObncRVn-jg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Well, thank Bill for that. No one told him to pull down his pants and
waste
a cigar.
No you can thank the Republicans for that. The investigation was about
Whitewater and after unbelievable amounts of money spent it all came
down to a lie about a *****.
Now I don't have a problem with him getting nailed on that perjury as
he shouldn't have done it. I do have a problem with the investigation
of a failed business venture that lost him money coming down to asking
the question they KNEW he would lie about.
Is this what passes for leftwing logic these days? They were going
after him on serious corruption charges and asked him abuse of power
questions which they 'knew' he'd lie about.
Long after they found nada, zilch, zippo about the corruption, THEN
they came up with that one. There was no 'serious corruption' that was
ever found or proved.
Ok.. So which part was the waste? And if you knew the guy was a known
pathological liar, why would you support him?
The waste was of millions of dollars that didn't need to be spent. The
same trial that he lied in could have been done for a few thousand at
most.....
Damn, you rightards are free with my money!
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 09:54:24 PM |
|
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
In article <MPG.1b8eaa63dcbd3ad0989875@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <190820040811409280%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <0aednQmeooMYObncRVn-jg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Well, thank Bill for that. No one told him to pull down his pants and
waste
a cigar.
No you can thank the Republicans for that. The investigation was about
Whitewater and after unbelievable amounts of money spent it all came
down to a lie about a *****.
Now I don't have a problem with him getting nailed on that perjury as
he shouldn't have done it. I do have a problem with the investigation
of a failed business venture that lost him money coming down to asking
the question they KNEW he would lie about.
Is this what passes for leftwing logic these days? They were going
after him on serious corruption charges and asked him abuse of power
questions which they 'knew' he'd lie about.
Long after they found nada, zilch, zippo about the corruption, THEN
they came up with that one. There was no 'serious corruption' that was
ever found or proved.
Ok.. So which part was the waste? And if you knew the guy was a known
pathological liar, why would you support him?
The waste was of millions of dollars that didn't need to be spent. The
same trial that he lied in could have been done for a few thousand at
most.....
Damn, you rightards are free with my money!
Reminds me of that TV commercial "What's in your wallet?"
--
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 01:21:05 PM |
|
|
In article <190820040704247112%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
In article <MPG.1b8df461710608e989870@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <180820042349241576%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <MPG.1b8deb278fc2610498986e@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <180820042313338479%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <MPG.1b8dd80586082a6b98986d@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
Nice try Jason, get some political education soon.
You are almost right here, it really wasn't about the *****. It
was
about 'getting' Clinton. Hillary was very correct when she said the
VWRC was out to get him.
That's from the education about hillary being right and the Vast Right
Wing Conspiracy insanity. *rolls eyes*
I always enjoy rightards as they always drink the kool-aid. If you got
off your ***** and do some research beyond JUST the right-wing crap, you
might learn that there is plenty something rotten on right just as
there is on the left.
One of the things that I keep seeing reinforced is that all too many of
the right are unwilling to see the bad things that are going on in
their groups that are literally identical in the other groups. Its
that pompous righteousness that turns people off.
Remember its been 40 years since the Republicans were last in control
of all 3 parts of gov't. With this bunch in there now, I think we know
why. Unfortunately after 40 years of better gov't, we forgot why we
threw them out 40 years ago. Now we remember, now we get to pitch them
again....
BS. LBJ era was worse. So was Carter's. Far worse. You must be
pretty young.
Well, if 60 is young.... ;-)
I was there for all of those, the first president I remember is
Eisenhower....
The reason clinton is 'liked' by some is because he happened to be
around during the tech boom. This same crowd (a lot of usenet, btw)
holds the same thing in reverse against Bush. Even though it started to
fall dramatically under clinton, Bush gets the blame.
The reason Clinton is liked by many is because, for all his personal
faults, he was a pretty good president. The reason the right was/is
afraid of him is because they know if it wasn't for the constitution
amendment limiting terms, he would still be President.
As much as it galls me to say so, Yes, in retrospect, Clinton wasn't
half bad. Not as good as Reagan, you understand, but not half bad.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mackay" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 03:11:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:21:05 +0000, George Graves wrote:
In article <190820040704247112%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
In article <MPG.1b8df461710608e989870@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <180820042349241576%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <MPG.1b8deb278fc2610498986e@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <180820042313338479%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <MPG.1b8dd80586082a6b98986d@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
Nice try Jason, get some political education soon.
You are almost right here, it really wasn't about the *****. It
was
about 'getting' Clinton. Hillary was very correct when she said the
VWRC was out to get him.
That's from the education about hillary being right and the Vast Right
Wing Conspiracy insanity. *rolls eyes*
I always enjoy rightards as they always drink the kool-aid. If you got
off your ***** and do some research beyond JUST the right-wing crap, you
might learn that there is plenty something rotten on right just as
there is on the left.
One of the things that I keep seeing reinforced is that all too many of
the right are unwilling to see the bad things that are going on in
their groups that are literally identical in the other groups. Its
that pompous righteousness that turns people off.
Remember its been 40 years since the Republicans were last in control
of all 3 parts of gov't. With this bunch in there now, I think we know
why. Unfortunately after 40 years of better gov't, we forgot why we
threw them out 40 years ago. Now we remember, now we get to pitch them
again....
BS. LBJ era was worse. So was Carter's. Far worse. You must be
pretty young.
Well, if 60 is young.... ;-)
I was there for all of those, the first president I remember is
Eisenhower....
The reason clinton is 'liked' by some is because he happened to be
around during the tech boom. This same crowd (a lot of usenet, btw)
holds the same thing in reverse against Bush. Even though it started to
fall dramatically under clinton, Bush gets the blame.
The reason Clinton is liked by many is because, for all his personal
faults, he was a pretty good president. The reason the right was/is
afraid of him is because they know if it wasn't for the constitution
amendment limiting terms, he would still be President.
As much as it galls me to say so, Yes, in retrospect, Clinton wasn't
half bad. Not as good as Reagan, you understand, but not half bad.
I agree, and I hate to say that. Clinton was just a sleeze.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 03:43:21 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.08.19.20.08.39.360000@hotmail.com>,
Steve Mackay <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:21:05 +0000, George Graves wrote:
In article <190820040704247112%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
In article <MPG.1b8df461710608e989870@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <180820042349241576%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <MPG.1b8deb278fc2610498986e@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <180820042313338479%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <MPG.1b8dd80586082a6b98986d@news-40.giganews.com>,
Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
Nice try Jason, get some political education soon.
You are almost right here, it really wasn't about the *****.
It
was
about 'getting' Clinton. Hillary was very correct when she said
the
VWRC was out to get him.
That's from the education about hillary being right and the Vast
Right
Wing Conspiracy insanity. *rolls eyes*
I always enjoy rightards as they always drink the kool-aid. If you
got
off your ***** and do some research beyond JUST the right-wing crap, you
might learn that there is plenty something rotten on right just as
there is on the left.
One of the things that I keep seeing reinforced is that all too many
of
the right are unwilling to see the bad things that are going on in
their groups that are literally identical in the other groups. Its
that pompous righteousness that turns people off.
Remember its been 40 years since the Republicans were last in control
of all 3 parts of gov't. With this bunch in there now, I think we
know
why. Unfortunately after 40 years of better gov't, we forgot why we
threw them out 40 years ago. Now we remember, now we get to pitch
them
again....
BS. LBJ era was worse. So was Carter's. Far worse. You must be
pretty young.
Well, if 60 is young.... ;-)
I was there for all of those, the first president I remember is
Eisenhower....
The reason clinton is 'liked' by some is because he happened to be
around during the tech boom. This same crowd (a lot of usenet, btw)
holds the same thing in reverse against Bush. Even though it started to
fall dramatically under clinton, Bush gets the blame.
The reason Clinton is liked by many is because, for all his personal
faults, he was a pretty good president. The reason the right was/is
afraid of him is because they know if it wasn't for the constitution
amendment limiting terms, he would still be President.
As much as it galls me to say so, Yes, in retrospect, Clinton wasn't
half bad. Not as good as Reagan, you understand, but not half bad.
I agree, and I hate to say that. Clinton was just a sleeze.
He sure is.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 09:55:30 PM |
|
|
George Graves wrote:
In article <pan.2004.08.19.20.08.39.360000@hotmail.com>,
Steve Mackay <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:21:05 +0000, George Graves wrote:
In article <190820040704247112%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
In article <MPG.1b8df461710608e989870@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <180820042349241576%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <MPG.1b8deb278fc2610498986e@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <180820042313338479%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <MPG.1b8dd80586082a6b98986d@news-40.giganews.com>,
Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
Nice try Jason, get some political education soon.
You are almost right here, it really wasn't about the *****.
It
was
about 'getting' Clinton. Hillary was very correct when she said
the
VWRC was out to get him.
That's from the education about hillary being right and the Vast
Right
Wing Conspiracy insanity. *rolls eyes*
I always enjoy rightards as they always drink the kool-aid. If you
got
off your ***** and do some research beyond JUST the right-wing crap, you
might learn that there is plenty something rotten on right just as
there is on the left.
One of the things that I keep seeing reinforced is that all too many
of
the right are unwilling to see the bad things that are going on in
their groups that are literally identical in the other groups. Its
that pompous righteousness that turns people off.
Remember its been 40 years since the Republicans were last in control
of all 3 parts of gov't. With this bunch in there now, I think we
know
why. Unfortunately after 40 years of better gov't, we forgot why we
threw them out 40 years ago. Now we remember, now we get to pitch
them
again....
BS. LBJ era was worse. So was Carter's. Far worse. You must be
pretty young.
Well, if 60 is young.... ;-)
I was there for all of those, the first president I remember is
Eisenhower....
The reason clinton is 'liked' by some is because he happened to be
around during the tech boom. This same crowd (a lot of usenet, btw)
holds the same thing in reverse against Bush. Even though it started to
fall dramatically under clinton, Bush gets the blame.
The reason Clinton is liked by many is because, for all his personal
faults, he was a pretty good president. The reason the right was/is
afraid of him is because they know if it wasn't for the constitution
amendment limiting terms, he would still be President.
As much as it galls me to say so, Yes, in retrospect, Clinton wasn't
half bad. Not as good as Reagan, you understand, but not half bad.
I agree, and I hate to say that. Clinton was just a sleeze.
He sure is.
I was wondering why my Chlorox stocks went up after he left office. :-))
--
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 03:27:26 PM |
|
|
Jason McNorton wrote:
In article <180820042313338479%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
lloydparsons@spamac.com says...
In article <MPG.1b8dd80586082a6b98986d@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
Nice try Jason, get some political education soon.
You are almost right here, it really wasn't about the *****. It was
about 'getting' Clinton. Hillary was very correct when she said the
VWRC was out to get him.
That's from the education about hillary being right and the Vast Right
Wing Conspiracy insanity. *rolls eyes*
I wonder how many black helicoptors Hillary has seen?
--
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mayor of Rlyeh" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
18 Aug 2004 10:26:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:11:46 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
In article <zROUc.9727$rd5.2406@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
<MuahMan@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any politician
at this level.
And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's *****
for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a ***** whether he got
one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
One only hopes you figure it before you're called to testify in a
trial, lest you find it being explained you by a large hairy man who
calls you 'Mary'.
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for President 2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "forge" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 12:12:19 AM |
|
|
In article <pc78i0592gsimcff10bdo9sen5olfotu0h@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
Lying to a bunch of witch-hunters? Who cares?
Lying to the entire Earth and especially to the American people he swore
to protect and uphold the Constitution for? Now that's bad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 12:24:11 AM |
|
|
"forge" <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote in
forge-D31EEF.01121919082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 8/18/04 10:12 PM:
In article <pc78i0592gsimcff10bdo9sen5olfotu0h@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
Lying to a bunch of witch-hunters? Who cares?
One has not committed perjury unless one is found guilty in a court of law.
Just ask Steve Carroll. He will tell you so over and over.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 09:17:08 AM |
|
|
In article <BD49878B.5D72D%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"forge" <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote in
forge-D31EEF.01121919082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 8/18/04 10:12 PM:
In article <pc78i0592gsimcff10bdo9sen5olfotu0h@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
Lying to a bunch of witch-hunters? Who cares?
One has not committed perjury unless one is found guilty in a court of law.
Just ask Steve Carroll. He will tell you so over and over.
Ironically, even when done INSIDE of a courtroom,(as perjury usually is)
the commission of a crime has little to do with being found guilty of it
in a court of law. You aren't guilty of a crime in this context (a legal
context) until certain things happen... even if you committed the crime
and EVERYONE in the courtroom saw you do it. This really isn't as
difficult as you make it out to be, Snit:)
--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group"
"You really need to learn the whole concept of context"
- Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
--
Steve C
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 09:42:14 AM |
|
|
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-6066ED.08173019082004@netnews.comcast.net on 8/19/04 7:17 AM:
In article <BD49878B.5D72D%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
"forge" <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote in
forge-D31EEF.01121919082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 8/18/04 10:12 PM:
In article <pc78i0592gsimcff10bdo9sen5olfotu0h@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
Lying to a bunch of witch-hunters? Who cares?
One has not committed perjury unless one is found guilty in a court of law.
Just ask Steve Carroll. He will tell you so over and over.
Ironically, even when done INSIDE of a courtroom,(as perjury usually is)
the commission of a crime has little to do with being found guilty of it
in a court of law.
Nobody has questioned that, Steve. The finding of guilt does not create the
guilt.
Just imagine if it did. Some judge would just sit there and be able to see
all accused (or perhaps just all people) and look at them and decide....
"hey, that one *is* guilty."... and you know what... they *would* be.
You really should think through your claims. The idea that a determination
a court *makes* someone become guilty makes no sense.
You aren't guilty of a crime in this context (a legal context) until certain
things happen... even if you committed the crime and EVERYONE in the courtroom
saw you do it. This really isn't as difficult as you make it out to be,
Snit:)
It is easy:
Some innocent people are found guilty.
Some guilty people are never found so by any court.
What is funny is watching you try to claim otherwise...
Keep in mind the original context: I never suggested Bush had been *found*
guilty of the crimes in question. I said he *is* guilty of committing
illegal acts.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 02:52:23 AM |
|
|
In article <forge-D31EEF.01121919082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
forge <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:
In article <pc78i0592gsimcff10bdo9sen5olfotu0h@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
Lying to a bunch of witch-hunters? Who cares?
The US System of Jurisprudence cares. Set a precedent like that and the
whole system collapses. Lying under oath to a constituted authority
cannot be allowed, even if you don't agree with that constituted
authority's goals. If you cannot see that, there is little hope for you
and less for the justice system. It's every bit that simple.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "C Lund" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
20 Aug 2004 01:55:27 AM |
|
|
In article <gmgravesnos-91DE6D.00543319082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
The US System of Jurisprudence cares. Set a precedent like that and the
whole system collapses.
To some point, yes. The problem is that the very fact that he even had
to answer stupid questions like that demonstrated that the system had
already collapsed. IOW he couldn't damage it any more than it already
was damaged.
Lying under oath to a constituted authority
cannot be allowed, even if you don't agree with that constituted
authority's goals. If you cannot see that, there is little hope for you
and less for the justice system. It's every bit that simple.
I think the US justice system is beyond hope.
--
George Graves
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
20 Aug 2004 03:12:40 AM |
|
|
In article <clund-AF6DF9.08552720082004@amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
In article <gmgravesnos-91DE6D.00543319082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
The US System of Jurisprudence cares. Set a precedent like that and the
whole system collapses.
To some point, yes. The problem is that the very fact that he even had
to answer stupid questions like that demonstrated that the system had
already collapsed. IOW he couldn't damage it any more than it already
was damaged.
Lying under oath to a constituted authority
cannot be allowed, even if you don't agree with that constituted
authority's goals. If you cannot see that, there is little hope for you
and less for the justice system. It's every bit that simple.
I think the US justice system is beyond hope.
So that's an excuse to suborn perjury?
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "C Lund" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
20 Aug 2004 05:34:54 AM |
|
|
In article
<gmgravesnos-D341F4.01124020082004@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article <clund-AF6DF9.08552720082004@amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
The US System of Jurisprudence cares. Set a precedent like that and the
whole system collapses.
To some point, yes. The problem is that the very fact that he even had
to answer stupid questions like that demonstrated that the system had
already collapsed. IOW he couldn't damage it any more than it already
was damaged.
Lying under oath to a constituted authority
cannot be allowed, even if you don't agree with that constituted
authority's goals. If you cannot see that, there is little hope for you
and less for the justice system. It's every bit that simple.
I think the US justice system is beyond hope.
So that's an excuse to suborn perjury?
In a farcical trial over a *****? Yes. Although I think it would
have been better if he had simply told those dirty old men it was none
of their business.
--
George Graves
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "forge" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 07:05:16 AM |
|
|
In article <gmgravesnos-91DE6D.00543319082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
Lying to a bunch of witch-hunters? Who cares?
The US System of Jurisprudence cares. Set a precedent like that and the
whole system collapses. Lying under oath to a constituted authority
cannot be allowed, even if you don't agree with that constituted
authority's goals. If you cannot see that, there is little hope for you
and less for the justice system. It's every bit that simple.
Yeah, I know, but it still sucks.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason McNorton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 03:26:14 AM |
|
|
In article <gmgravesnos-91DE6D.00543319082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
gmgravesnos@pacbell.net says...
In article <forge-D31EEF.01121919082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
forge <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:
In article <pc78i0592gsimcff10bdo9sen5olfotu0h@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
Lying to a bunch of witch-hunters? Who cares?
The US System of Jurisprudence cares. Set a precedent like that and the
whole system collapses. Lying under oath to a constituted authority
cannot be allowed, even if you don't agree with that constituted
authority's goals. If you cannot see that, there is little hope for you
and less for the justice system. It's every bit that simple.
He should've had enough sense to plead the 5th. What a buffoon that guy
was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 01:45:33 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1b8e1c1679a0d3e6989873@news-40.giganews.com>,
Jason McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <gmgravesnos-91DE6D.00543319082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
gmgravesnos@pacbell.net says...
In article <forge-D31EEF.01121919082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
forge <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:
In article <pc78i0592gsimcff10bdo9sen5olfotu0h@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
Lying to a bunch of witch-hunters? Who cares?
The US System of Jurisprudence cares. Set a precedent like that and the
whole system collapses. Lying under oath to a constituted authority
cannot be allowed, even if you don't agree with that constituted
authority's goals. If you cannot see that, there is little hope for you
and less for the justice system. It's every bit that simple.
He should've had enough sense to plead the 5th. What a buffoon that guy
was.
Well, that's one of only TWO real alternatives he had answer the
question with the truth or stand on his Constitutional right to not self
incriminate. Better yet, his council should have objected to the
question, if they did, and the bench overruled it, then, of course, he
had no choice but to answer or take the 5th.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parsons" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 07:06:23 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1b8e1c1679a0d3e6989873@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <gmgravesnos-91DE6D.00543319082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
gmgravesnos@pacbell.net says...
In article <forge-D31EEF.01121919082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
forge <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:
In article <pc78i0592gsimcff10bdo9sen5olfotu0h@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
Lying to a bunch of witch-hunters? Who cares?
The US System of Jurisprudence cares. Set a precedent like that and the
whole system collapses. Lying under oath to a constituted authority
cannot be allowed, even if you don't agree with that constituted
authority's goals. If you cannot see that, there is little hope for you
and less for the justice system. It's every bit that simple.
He should've had enough sense to plead the 5th. What a buffoon that guy
was.
Uh, huh....
A buffoon who went from being poor white trash to President. You
should be so successful!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parsons" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
18 Aug 2004 11:16:07 PM |
|
|
In article <pc78i0592gsimcff10bdo9sen5olfotu0h@4ax.com>, Mayor of
R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:11:46 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
In article <zROUc.9727$rd5.2406@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
<MuahMan@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a
real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any politician
at this level.
And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's *****
for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a ***** whether he got
one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
One only hopes you figure it before you're called to testify in a
trial, lest you find it being explained you by a large hairy man who
calls you 'Mary'.
Quit playing the political ***** game, Mayor. I actually think you
are smarter than that. The entire fiasco was a simple vendetta that
perjury ended. Had that not happened, those idiots would still be
investigating on my and your dime!
You know it and I know it.
Lloyd
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 02:53:12 AM |
|
|
In article <180820042316027441%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
In article <pc78i0592gsimcff10bdo9sen5olfotu0h@4ax.com>, Mayor of
R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:11:46 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
In article <zROUc.9727$rd5.2406@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
<MuahMan@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a
real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any
politician
at this level.
And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's *****
for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a ***** whether he got
one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
One only hopes you figure it before you're called to testify in a
trial, lest you find it being explained you by a large hairy man who
calls you 'Mary'.
Quit playing the political ***** game, Mayor. I actually think you
are smarter than that. The entire fiasco was a simple vendetta that
perjury ended. Had that not happened, those idiots would still be
investigating on my and your dime!
You know it and I know it.
Lloyd
That's true, but it's still irrelevant.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mayor of Rlyeh" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 12:28:43 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:16:07 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
In article <pc78i0592gsimcff10bdo9sen5olfotu0h@4ax.com>, Mayor of
R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:11:46 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
In article <zROUc.9727$rd5.2406@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
<MuahMan@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a
real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any politician
at this level.
And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's *****
for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a ***** whether he got
one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
One only hopes you figure it before you're called to testify in a
trial, lest you find it being explained you by a large hairy man who
calls you 'Mary'.
Quit playing the political ***** game, Mayor.
I've got the facts on my side, Lloyd. All you have is political
*****.
I actually think you are smarter than that. The entire fiasco was a simple vendetta that
perjury ended.
WTF are you talking about? The perjury got things rolling big time. If
Clinton had gone into that deposition and said 'Yeah, I fucked her.'
there would have been a bit of a furor for a couple of weeks and then
it would have died down and gone away.
Had that not happened, those idiots would still be
investigating on my and your dime!
You know it and I know it.
His lies are what made the investigation necessary in the first place.
They had to be able to prove that he lied. That's what the
investigation was all about. If he'd told the truth there would have
been no investigation.
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for President 2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parsons" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 05:17:55 PM |
|
|
In article <gjo9i0dmlddgfaigank6ij4shga19hga2r@4ax.com>, Mayor of
R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:16:07 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
In article <pc78i0592gsimcff10bdo9sen5olfotu0h@4ax.com>, Mayor of
R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:11:46 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
In article <zROUc.9727$rd5.2406@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
<MuahMan@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a
real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any
politician
at this level.
And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's *****
for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a ***** whether he got
one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
One only hopes you figure it before you're called to testify in a
trial, lest you find it being explained you by a large hairy man who
calls you 'Mary'.
Quit playing the political ***** game, Mayor.
I've got the facts on my side, Lloyd. All you have is political
*****.
I actually think you are smarter than that. The entire fiasco was a
simple vendetta that
perjury ended.
WTF are you talking about? The perjury got things rolling big time. If
Clinton had gone into that deposition and said 'Yeah, I fucked her.'
there would have been a bit of a furor for a couple of weeks and then
it would have died down and gone away.
*****! The perjury was much later in the fiasco that was the
'whitewater investigation'.
And if you actually believe that his admission would have caused it to
die down, I've got a bridge I need to sell and you look and sound like
a likely candidate...
Had that not happened, those idiots would still be
investigating on my and your dime!
You know it and I know it.
His lies are what made the investigation necessary in the first place.
They had to be able to prove that he lied. That's what the
investigation was all about. If he'd told the truth there would have
been no investigation.
There was never any semblance of a normal investigation in there.
Starr showed how pompous and arrogant a lawyer can get, and in the end,
after $40Million or so, we got a slap on the wrist to Clinton.
*****, a few Republicans ended up worse off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mayor of Rlyeh" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
19 Aug 2004 08:31:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:17:55 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
In article <gjo9i0dmlddgfaigank6ij4shga19hga2r@4ax.com>, Mayor of
R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:16:07 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
In article <pc78i0592gsimcff10bdo9sen5olfotu0h@4ax.com>, Mayor of
R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:11:46 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
In article <zROUc.9727$rd5.2406@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
<MuahMan@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklowicz24@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:2de3419.0408181141.4247db14@posting.google.com...
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a
real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any
politician
at this level.
And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's *****
for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a ***** whether he got
one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
One only hopes you figure it before you're called to testify in a
trial, lest you find it being explained you by a large hairy man who
calls you 'Mary'.
Quit playing the political ***** game, Mayor.
I've got the facts on my side, Lloyd. All you have is political
*****.
I actually think you are smarter than that. The entire fiasco was a
simple vendetta that
perjury ended.
WTF are you talking about? The perjury got things rolling big time. If
Clinton had gone into that deposition and said 'Yeah, I fucked her.'
there would have been a bit of a furor for a couple of weeks and then
it would have died down and gone away.
*****! The perjury was much later in the fiasco that was the
'whitewater investigation'.
Actually the Whitewater thing was a seperate issue.
And if you actually believe that his admission would have caused it to
die down, I've got a bridge I need to sell and you look and sound like
a likely candidate...
There wouldn't have been a choice. It wouldn't have had any place to
go.
Had that not happened, those idiots would still be
investigating on my and your dime!
You know it and I know it.
His lies are what made the investigation necessary in the first place.
They had to be able to prove that he lied. That's what the
investigation was all about. If he'd told the truth there would have
been no investigation.
There was never any semblance of a normal investigation in there.
Actually it was all pretty much a standard investigation.
Starr showed how pompous and arrogant a lawyer can get,
In what way?
and in the end, after $40Million or so, we got a slap on the wrist to Clinton.
Only because the Democrats were more interested in shoring up their
boy than they were in justice.
*****, a few Republicans ended up worse off.
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for President 2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "C Lund" |
|
| Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? |
20 Aug 2004 01:59:10 AM |
|
|
In article <pukai0tcf0n6vcbh13behnp27huet34d1s@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
*****! The perjury was much later in the fiasco that was the
'whi | | | | | | |
