| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kate Lampson" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2004 03:23:07 PM |
| Object: |
Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
The only thing that Al Franken did on his Hate-America Radio Show was
to come off with a really bad take off on his old borring SNL crap.
.
|
|
| User: "misterfact" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
13 Apr 2004 09:02:27 AM |
|
|
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.04.04.03.13.26.565185@visi.com>...
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 02:03:54 +0000, miranda wrote:
Callistus Valerius <jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S3Jbc.13825$Dv2.12418@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"torresD" <torresD30@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ULGbc.13661$Dv2.11824@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
This "intelligent" President was only the
second President to be impeached,
and all because he couldn't keep his
***** in his pants.
Oh Please!
Clinton wanted a ***** and that was a crime?!
it is nonsense.
the crime was lying about it under oath.
I would consider it an honor and my patriotic duty to lie to a
federal judge in answering IRRELEVANT questions concerning my private
sex life! That is- if I had one!
(Monica was AFTER Paula Jones allegation. The question to Clinton,
"Did you have sex with Miss Lewinsky" had nothing to do with
determining a pattern of sexual harrassment)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmi H." |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
14 Apr 2004 02:59:25 PM |
|
|
In article <6b107ee9.0404130602.4aebca9d@posting.google.com>,
(misterfact) wrote:
(Monica was AFTER Paula Jones allegation. The question to Clinton,
"Did you have sex with Miss Lewinsky" had nothing to do with
determining a pattern of sexual harrassment)
The hell it didn't.
Jeebus, you JackAss... What better way is there to show a pattern of
sexual harassment than to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of sexual
harassment *AFTER* a sexual harassment suit has been filed?
--
-
Emmi H.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
14 Apr 2004 05:13:35 PM |
|
|
Emmi H. <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <6b107ee9.0404130602.4aebca9d@posting.google.com>,
misterfact@yahoo.com (misterfact) wrote:
(Monica was AFTER Paula Jones allegation. The question to Clinton, "Did
you have sex with Miss Lewinsky" had nothing to do with determining a
pattern of sexual harrassment)
The hell it didn't.
Jeebus, you JackAss... What better way is there to show a pattern of
sexual harassment than to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of sexual
harassment *AFTER* a sexual harassment suit has been filed?
Demonstrating a pattern of sexual harrassment at the time it's claimed
the person had a pattern of sexual harrassment. Furthermore, the
Lewinsky bit didn't prove a pattern of sexual harrassment; it proved
that the guy was a horndog.
--
"Maybe the mothers of our nation should remind us
That we're sitting too close
To the television"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmi H." |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
14 Apr 2004 06:33:33 PM |
|
|
In article <1gc8n22.hk1dqxm7lg19N%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3>,
usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3 (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
Emmi H. <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <6b107ee9.0404130602.4aebca9d@posting.google.com>,
misterfact@yahoo.com (misterfact) wrote:
(Monica was AFTER Paula Jones allegation. The question to Clinton, "Did
you have sex with Miss Lewinsky" had nothing to do with determining a
pattern of sexual harrassment)
The hell it didn't.
Jeebus, you JackAss... What better way is there to show a pattern of
sexual harassment than to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of sexual
harassment *AFTER* a sexual harassment suit has been filed?
Demonstrating a pattern of sexual harrassment at the time it's claimed
the person had a pattern of sexual harrassment.
Huh?
Could you possibly be more obscure and nonsensical, Paul?
Furthermore, the
Lewinsky bit didn't prove a pattern of sexual harrassment; it proved
that the guy was a horndog.
Sex with an underling while in a position of power is *ALWAYS*
scrutinised during sexual harassment suits, Paul.
--
-
Emmi H.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
14 Apr 2004 08:24:43 PM |
|
|
Emmi H. <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1gc8n22.hk1dqxm7lg19N%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3>,
usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3 (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
Emmi H. <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <6b107ee9.0404130602.4aebca9d@posting.google.com>,
misterfact@yahoo.com (misterfact) wrote:
(Monica was AFTER Paula Jones allegation. The question to Clinton,
"Did you have sex with Miss Lewinsky" had nothing to do with
determining a pattern of sexual harrassment)
[..]
Jeebus, you JackAss... What better way is there to show a pattern of
sexual harassment than to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of sexual
harassment *AFTER* a sexual harassment suit has been filed?
Demonstrating a pattern of sexual harrassment at the time it's claimed
the person had a pattern of sexual harrassment.
Huh?
Could you possibly be more obscure and nonsensical, Paul?
Yes, I could, since that answer isn't obscure and nonsensical at all. It
answers your question directly. Maybe you should re-read your question
and then re-read my answer.
Furthermore, the Lewinsky bit didn't prove a pattern of sexual
harrassment; it proved that the guy was a horndog.
Sex with an underling while in a position of power is *ALWAYS*
scrutinised during sexual harassment suits, Paul.
Yup. And?
Lewinsky was consensual. Dude was a horndog.
--
"Maybe the mothers of our nation should remind us
That we're sitting too close
To the television"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmi H." |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
14 Apr 2004 10:34:04 PM |
|
|
In article <1gc8vnk.1nd4x8q1x0wneoN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3>,
usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3 (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
Emmi H. <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1gc8n22.hk1dqxm7lg19N%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3>,
usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3 (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
Emmi H. <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <6b107ee9.0404130602.4aebca9d@posting.google.com>,
misterfact@yahoo.com (misterfact) wrote:
(Monica was AFTER Paula Jones allegation. The question to Clinton,
"Did you have sex with Miss Lewinsky" had nothing to do with
determining a pattern of sexual harrassment)
[..]
Jeebus, you JackAss... What better way is there to show a pattern of
sexual harassment than to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of sexual
harassment *AFTER* a sexual harassment suit has been filed?
Demonstrating a pattern of sexual harrassment at the time it's claimed
the person had a pattern of sexual harrassment.
Huh?
Could you possibly be more obscure and nonsensical, Paul?
Yes, I could, since that answer isn't obscure and nonsensical at all. It
answers your question directly. Maybe you should re-read your question
and then re-read my answer.
Why?
There comes a point where parotting the same old 'to the exclusion of
all other evidence' line gets a tad long in the tooth, Paul.
Furthermore, the Lewinsky bit didn't prove a pattern of sexual
harrassment; it proved that the guy was a horndog.
Sex with an underling while in a position of power is *ALWAYS*
scrutinised during sexual harassment suits, Paul.
Yup. And?
Lewinsky was consensual. Dude was a horndog.
And given the nature of the Jones lawsuit, it behooved the courts to
establish that the relationship was in fact consensual, Paul.
Face it, Paul... Requiring Lewinski and Clinton to testify passed every
single legal roadblock put up by Clinton's legal team.
--
-
Emmi H.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
14 Apr 2004 10:51:02 PM |
|
|
Emmi H. <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1gc8vnk.1nd4x8q1x0wneoN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3>,
usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3 (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
Emmi H. <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1gc8n22.hk1dqxm7lg19N%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3>,
usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3 (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
Emmi H. <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <6b107ee9.0404130602.4aebca9d@posting.google.com>,
misterfact@yahoo.com (misterfact) wrote:
(Monica was AFTER Paula Jones allegation. The question to
Clinton, "Did you have sex with Miss Lewinsky" had nothing to do
with determining a pattern of sexual harrassment)
[..]
Jeebus, you JackAss... What better way is there to show a pattern
of sexual harassment than to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of
sexual harassment *AFTER* a sexual harassment suit has been filed?
Demonstrating a pattern of sexual harrassment at the time it's
claimed the person had a pattern of sexual harrassment.
Huh?
Could you possibly be more obscure and nonsensical, Paul?
Yes, I could, since that answer isn't obscure and nonsensical at all. It
answers your question directly. Maybe you should re-read your question
and then re-read my answer.
Why?
There comes a point where parotting the same old 'to the exclusion of all
other evidence' line gets a tad long in the tooth, Paul.
You asked what would be better. I answered. The rest is assumption on
your part.
--
"Maybe the mothers of our nation should remind us
That we're sitting too close
To the television"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Warren" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
14 Apr 2004 07:51:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:33:33 -0700, "Emmi H."
<hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1gc8n22.hk1dqxm7lg19N%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3>,
usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3 (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
Emmi H. <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <6b107ee9.0404130602.4aebca9d@posting.google.com>,
misterfact@yahoo.com (misterfact) wrote:
(Monica was AFTER Paula Jones allegation. The question to Clinton, "Did
you have sex with Miss Lewinsky" had nothing to do with determining a
pattern of sexual harrassment)
The hell it didn't.
Jeebus, you JackAss... What better way is there to show a pattern of
sexual harassment than to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of sexual
harassment *AFTER* a sexual harassment suit has been filed?
Demonstrating a pattern of sexual harrassment at the time it's claimed
the person had a pattern of sexual harrassment.
Huh?
Could you possibly be more obscure and nonsensical, Paul?
Furthermore, the
Lewinsky bit didn't prove a pattern of sexual harrassment; it proved
that the guy was a horndog.
Sex with an underling while in a position of power is *ALWAYS*
scrutinised during sexual harassment suits, Paul.
Still discussing Lewinsky, the Neo-Cons have so little to hang on to.
Hey penis brain what has bush done that you are particularly proud of?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Each Hero Sues Ookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
14 Apr 2004 09:56:03 PM |
|
|
On 4/14/04 3:13 PM, in article
1gc8n22.hk1dqxm7lg19N%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3, "Paul Mitchum"
<usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote:
Emmi H. <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <6b107ee9.0404130602.4aebca9d@posting.google.com>,
misterfact@yahoo.com (misterfact) wrote:
(Monica was AFTER Paula Jones allegation. The question to Clinton, "Did
you have sex with Miss Lewinsky" had nothing to do with determining a
pattern of sexual harrassment)
The hell it didn't.
Jeebus, you JackAss... What better way is there to show a pattern of
sexual harassment than to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of sexual
harassment *AFTER* a sexual harassment suit has been filed?
Demonstrating a pattern of sexual harrassment at the time it's claimed
the person had a pattern of sexual harrassment. Furthermore, the
Lewinsky bit didn't prove a pattern of sexual harrassment; it proved
that the guy was a horndog.
It was for the grand jury to decide whether someone who has affairs with his
subordinates may also make unwanted advances to subordinates.
Why do you defend Clinton's subversion of justice? Don't you think true
Americans that love the country like to see justice served?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
14 Apr 2004 10:17:35 PM |
|
|
Each Hero Sues Ookie <EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/14/04 3:13 PM, in article
1gc8n22.hk1dqxm7lg19N%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3, "Paul Mitchum"
<usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote:
Emmi H. <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <6b107ee9.0404130602.4aebca9d@posting.google.com>,
misterfact@yahoo.com (misterfact) wrote:
(Monica was AFTER Paula Jones allegation. The question to Clinton,
"Did you have sex with Miss Lewinsky" had nothing to do with
determining a pattern of sexual harrassment)
The hell it didn't.
Jeebus, you JackAss... What better way is there to show a pattern of
sexual harassment than to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of sexual
harassment *AFTER* a sexual harassment suit has been filed?
Demonstrating a pattern of sexual harrassment at the time it's claimed
the person had a pattern of sexual harrassment. Furthermore, the
Lewinsky bit didn't prove a pattern of sexual harrassment; it proved
that the guy was a horndog.
It was for the grand jury to decide whether someone who has affairs with
his subordinates may also make unwanted advances to subordinates.
Yup. But consider this: If you accuse me of drinking underage back when
I was underage, and cite as evidence the fact that I drink now, in my
mid-30s, then you haven't proved I used to drink back then.
Why do you defend Clinton's subversion of justice?
I'm not defending Clinton. I'm pointing out Emmi's error. She could
probably find valid reasons to slag Clinton, without inventing them.
Clinton was a horndog, and a supremely slimy character, but the fact
that he did some consensual things with Lewinsky doesn't prove he
sexually harrassed Jones.
Don't you think true Americans that love the country like to see justice
served?
In my case, that's true.
--
"Maybe the mothers of our nation should remind us
That we're sitting too close
To the television"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde Not the man who knows everything, just the man who knowsthe important things " |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
15 Apr 2004 05:09:52 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Each Hero Sues Ookie <EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why do you defend Clinton's subversion of justice?
I'm not defending Clinton. I'm pointing out Emmi's error. She could
probably find valid reasons to slag Clinton, without inventing them.
Clinton was a horndog, and a supremely slimy character, but the fact
that he did some consensual things with Lewinsky doesn't prove he
sexually harrassed Jones.
Without testimony, how could you know it was consensual? And isn't the
MO claimed over Jones similar to that used with Lewinsky? And what is
sexual harassment if it isn't using power in a job position in order to
get sex from an underling? Just because it worked with the underling
doesn't mean it didn't happen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
15 Apr 2004 05:43:11 PM |
|
|
Bill Bonde ( Not the man who knows everything, just the man who knows
the important things ) <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Each Hero Sues Ookie <EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why do you defend Clinton's subversion of justice?
I'm not defending Clinton. I'm pointing out Emmi's error. She could
probably find valid reasons to slag Clinton, without inventing them.
Clinton was a horndog, and a supremely slimy character, but the fact
that he did some consensual things with Lewinsky doesn't prove he
sexually harrassed Jones.
Without testimony, how could you know it was consensual?
Who's saying there shouldn't have been testimony?
And isn't the MO claimed over Jones similar to that used with Lewinsky?
Dunno. Don't care. Emmi asked what kind of evidence would have been
better.
And what is sexual harassment if it isn't using power in a job position in
order to get sex from an underling?
You mean you don't know of any other kind of sexual harrassment than
on-the-job power-mongering?
Just because it worked with the underling doesn't mean it didn't happen.
And just because it might have worked with Lewinsky (even though that's
not Lewisky's story) doesn't mean it happened with Jones.
Like I said: I'm not defending Clinton here. I'm just saying.
--
"Maybe the mothers of our nation should remind us
That we're sitting too close
To the television"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Warren" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
15 Apr 2004 07:03:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:09:52 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( Not the man who
knows everything, just the man who knows the important things )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Each Hero Sues Ookie <EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why do you defend Clinton's subversion of justice?
I'm not defending Clinton. I'm pointing out Emmi's error. She could
probably find valid reasons to slag Clinton, without inventing them.
Clinton was a horndog, and a supremely slimy character, but the fact
that he did some consensual things with Lewinsky doesn't prove he
sexually harrassed Jones.
Without testimony, how could you know it was consensual? And isn't the
MO claimed over Jones similar to that used with Lewinsky? And what is
sexual harassment if it isn't using power in a job position in order to
get sex from an underling? Just because it worked with the underling
doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Bill old buddy I can't find Newt Gingrich's testimony about his
interns he was having sex with, can you supply a link.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neal Atkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
15 Apr 2004 07:40:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:03:04 -0400, Jim Warren <jmwarren@msu.edu>
wrote:
Bill old buddy I can't find Newt Gingrich's testimony about his
interns he was having sex with, can you supply a link.
It was on franken's "radio network". But you can't listen in 95% of
the country. Seems they bounced a check to their supplier for LA and
Chicago. I guess they found out radio isn't "free".
Thank god.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Warren" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
14 Apr 2004 10:26:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:56:03 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/14/04 3:13 PM, in article
1gc8n22.hk1dqxm7lg19N%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3, "Paul Mitchum"
<usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote:
Emmi H. <hugnkissMYBLOUSE98122@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <6b107ee9.0404130602.4aebca9d@posting.google.com>,
misterfact@yahoo.com (misterfact) wrote:
(Monica was AFTER Paula Jones allegation. The question to Clinton, "Did
you have sex with Miss Lewinsky" had nothing to do with determining a
pattern of sexual harrassment)
The hell it didn't.
Jeebus, you JackAss... What better way is there to show a pattern of
sexual harassment than to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of sexual
harassment *AFTER* a sexual harassment suit has been filed?
Demonstrating a pattern of sexual harrassment at the time it's claimed
the person had a pattern of sexual harrassment. Furthermore, the
Lewinsky bit didn't prove a pattern of sexual harrassment; it proved
that the guy was a horndog.
It was for the grand jury to decide whether someone who has affairs with his
subordinates may also make unwanted advances to subordinates.
Why do you defend Clinton's subversion of justice? Don't you think true
Americans that love the country like to see justice served?
Justice is in the eyes of the beholder. If Dubya was caught having sex
with a five year old you would argue the five year old asked for it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Each Hero Sues Ookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
04 Apr 2004 08:35:25 PM |
|
|
On 4/3/04 3:07 PM, in article Xns94C0A41BECF87VeebleFetzer@209.98.13.60,
"Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote:
In news:38cu6056e4tld31n95ijemslh13j8ajp75@4ax.com Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:28:40 GMT, "Callistus Valerius"
<jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote:
Clinton made a point of surrounding himself with people who might be
90% as intelligent as himself, but never his equal.
how much intelligence does it take to go through life, asking women
he encounters for blow jobs? This "intelligent" President was only the
second President to be impeached, and all because he couldn't keep his
***** in his pants.
He was set up to lie about his affair. ...
How's that again?
It is predictable that a liberal will lie about sex.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
04 Apr 2004 10:01:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:35:25 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/3/04 3:07 PM, in article Xns94C0A41BECF87VeebleFetzer@209.98.13.60,
"Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote:
In news:38cu6056e4tld31n95ijemslh13j8ajp75@4ax.com Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:28:40 GMT, "Callistus Valerius"
<jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote:
Clinton made a point of surrounding himself with people who might be
90% as intelligent as himself, but never his equal.
how much intelligence does it take to go through life, asking women
he encounters for blow jobs? This "intelligent" President was only the
second President to be impeached, and all because he couldn't keep his
***** in his pants.
He was set up to lie about his affair. ...
How's that again?
It is predictable that a liberal will lie about sex.
Be realistic. It's predictable that practically *everyone* will lie
about sex.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Each Hero Sues Ookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
04 Apr 2004 10:31:38 PM |
|
|
On 4/4/04 8:01 PM, in article gqi170l6m4es3rg031sevnb6v3ns007n8d@4ax.com,
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:35:25 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/3/04 3:07 PM, in article Xns94C0A41BECF87VeebleFetzer@209.98.13.60,
"Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote:
In news:38cu6056e4tld31n95ijemslh13j8ajp75@4ax.com Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:28:40 GMT, "Callistus Valerius"
<jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote:
Clinton made a point of surrounding himself with people who might be
90% as intelligent as himself, but never his equal.
how much intelligence does it take to go through life, asking women
he encounters for blow jobs? This "intelligent" President was only the
second President to be impeached, and all because he couldn't keep his
***** in his pants.
He was set up to lie about his affair. ...
How's that again?
It is predictable that a liberal will lie about sex.
Be realistic. It's predictable that practically *everyone* will lie
about sex.
Would you? I wouldn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
04 Apr 2004 10:43:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:31:38 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/4/04 8:01 PM, in article gqi170l6m4es3rg031sevnb6v3ns007n8d@4ax.com,
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:35:25 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is predictable that a liberal will lie about sex.
Be realistic. It's predictable that practically *everyone* will lie
about sex.
Would you? I wouldn't.
My apologies. You didn't mention that you were celibate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Each Hero Sues Ookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
05 Apr 2004 12:51:20 AM |
|
|
On 4/4/04 8:43 PM, in article mpl17050abesv4njbtf655aoijboqsckr7@4ax.com,
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:31:38 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/4/04 8:01 PM, in article gqi170l6m4es3rg031sevnb6v3ns007n8d@4ax.com,
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:35:25 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is predictable that a liberal will lie about sex.
Be realistic. It's predictable that practically *everyone* will lie
about sex.
Would you? I wouldn't.
My apologies. You didn't mention that you were celibate.
You prove my point that it's predictable that a liberal will lie about
sex... And not be monogamous.
What's crazy is that these two behaviors of liberals would be humiliations
for conservatives and they are badges of honor for liberals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
05 Apr 2004 11:19:07 AM |
|
|
Each Hero Sues Ookie <EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:BC9641E8.4E2C%EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com:
On 4/4/04 8:43 PM, in article
mpl17050abesv4njbtf655aoijboqsckr7@4ax.com, "raven1"
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:31:38 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/4/04 8:01 PM, in article
gqi170l6m4es3rg031sevnb6v3ns007n8d@4ax.com, "raven1"
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:35:25 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is predictable that a liberal will lie about sex.
Be realistic. It's predictable that practically *everyone* will lie
about sex.
Would you? I wouldn't.
My apologies. You didn't mention that you were celibate.
You prove my point that it's predictable that a liberal will lie about
sex... And not be monogamous.
What's crazy is that these two behaviors of liberals would be
humiliations for conservatives and they are badges of honor for
liberals.
That's because we "Liberals" know where the ***** is. You conservatives
seem to prefer little kids.
--
Dr. Smartass
BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
Q: Why did the chicken cross the Moebius strip?
A: To get to the other...er, um...
[seen on a math jokes site]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
05 Apr 2004 01:15:44 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 22:51:20 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/4/04 8:43 PM, in article mpl17050abesv4njbtf655aoijboqsckr7@4ax.com,
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:31:38 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/4/04 8:01 PM, in article gqi170l6m4es3rg031sevnb6v3ns007n8d@4ax.com,
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:35:25 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is predictable that a liberal will lie about sex.
Be realistic. It's predictable that practically *everyone* will lie
about sex.
Would you? I wouldn't.
My apologies. You didn't mention that you were celibate.
You prove my point that it's predictable that a liberal will lie about
sex... And not be monogamous.
Non Sequitur.
What's crazy is that these two behaviors of liberals would be humiliations
for conservatives and they are badges of honor for liberals.
Why should human sexuality be humiliating to anyone?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
05 Apr 2004 11:17:02 AM |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:<7gu1709kf9ffsa4pa250rtil18082373gd@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 22:51:20 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/4/04 8:43 PM, in article mpl17050abesv4njbtf655aoijboqsckr7@4ax.com,
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:31:38 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4/4/04 8:01 PM, in article gqi170l6m4es3rg031sevnb6v3ns007n8d@4ax.com,
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:35:25 -0700, Each Hero Sues Ookie
<EachHeroSuesOokie@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is predictable that a liberal will lie about sex.
Be realistic. It's predictable that practically *everyone* will lie
about sex.
Would you? I wouldn't.
My apologies. You didn't mention that you were celibate.
You prove my point that it's predictable that a liberal will lie about
sex... And not be monogamous.
Non Sequitur.
What's crazy is that these two behaviors of liberals would be humiliations
for conservatives and they are badges of honor for liberals.
Why should human sexuality be humiliating to anyone?
Because half of us have a moral component to our sexuality. The other
half is hoping they don't get AIDS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
06 Apr 2004 09:02:04 PM |
|
|
On 5 Apr 2004 09:17:02 -0700, (Al) wrote:
Why should human sexuality be humiliating to anyone?
Because half of us have a moral component to our sexuality. The other
half is hoping they don't get AIDS.
As Paul Stanley from KISS put it on the Oprah Winfrey Show, "when you
jump out of an airplane, you wear a parachute"...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
07 Apr 2004 10:39:16 AM |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:<dmo670d5p789bdinur726gos9isch6dhqe@4ax.com>...
On 5 Apr 2004 09:17:02 -0700, (Al) wrote:
Why should human sexuality be humiliating to anyone?
Because half of us have a moral component to our sexuality. The other
half is hoping they don't get AIDS.
As Paul Stanley from KISS put it on the Oprah Winfrey Show, "when you
jump out of an airplane, you wear a parachute"...
If a parachute failed 5% of the time, how many times would you jump out of a plane?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron Hirshberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
06 Apr 2004 12:29:59 PM |
|
|
"Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Oafbc.11570$Dv2.4831@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
O'Franken. I would be really interested in
how she got her seat next to him, because she seems like a sleath ninja
agent of failure to me.
What do you think the qualifications were for the women that sat next to
O'Clinton?
What were GW's qualifications to sit in the classroom at Yale
University, or Harvard Business School? He was a rich white man.
Aaron Hirshberg
.
|
|
|
| User: "miranda" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
06 Apr 2004 12:56:07 PM |
|
|
Aaron Hirshberg <aaronhirshberg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:170bb020.0404060929.49dda050@posting.google.com...
"Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Oafbc.11570$Dv2.4831@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
O'Franken. I would be really interested in
how she got her seat next to him, because she seems like a sleath
ninja
agent of failure to me.
What do you think the qualifications were for the women that sat
next to
O'Clinton?
What were GW's qualifications to sit in the classroom at Yale
University,
entrance scores and grades.
have you researched them?
whit
or Harvard Business School? He was a rich white man.
Aaron Hirshberg
.
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
06 Apr 2004 04:39:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:56:07 +0000, miranda wrote:
Aaron Hirshberg <aaronhirshberg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:170bb020.0404060929.49dda050@posting.google.com...
"Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Oafbc.11570$Dv2.4831@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
O'Franken. I would be really interested in
how she got her seat next to him, because she seems like a sleath
ninja
agent of failure to me.
What do you think the qualifications were for the women that sat
next to
O'Clinton?
What were GW's qualifications to sit in the classroom at Yale
University,
entrance scores and grades.
have you researched them?
whit
or Harvard Business School? He was a rich white man.
Aaron Hirshberg
Let's take a reasonable look at the college entrance process:
1. Father an alum? YES
2. Father rich? YES
3. Father a senator? YES
4. Kid attended rich kid prep school YES
5. Grades, achievement, potential? Who cares!
BINGO
.
|
|
|
| User: "miranda" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
06 Apr 2004 06:41:05 PM |
|
|
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.06.21.39.53.568847@visi.com...
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:56:07 +0000, miranda wrote:
Aaron Hirshberg <aaronhirshberg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:170bb020.0404060929.49dda050@posting.google.com...
"Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Oafbc.11570$Dv2.4831@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
O'Franken. I would be really interested in
how she got her seat next to him, because she seems like a sleath
ninja
agent of failure to me.
What do you think the qualifications were for the women that sat
next to
O'Clinton?
What were GW's qualifications to sit in the classroom at Yale
University,
entrance scores and grades.
have you researched them?
whit
or Harvard Business School? He was a rich white man.
Aaron Hirshberg
Let's take a reasonable look at the college entrance process:
1. Father an alum? YES
2. Father rich? YES
3. Father a senator? YES
4. Kid attended rich kid prep school YES
5. Grades, achievement, potential? Who cares!
BINGO
apparently you are ignorant of what his entrance scores and grades WERE.
but of course this didn;t stop you from opining.
how typical.
whit
.
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken's Hate-America Radio show BOMBS AWAY! |
07 Apr 2004 07:04:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 23:41:05 +0000, miranda wrote:
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.06.21.39.53.568847@visi.com...
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:56:07 +0000, miranda wrote:
Aaron Hirshberg <aaronhirshberg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:170bb020.0404060929.49dda050@posting.google.com...
"Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Oafbc.11570$Dv2.4831@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
O'Franken. I would be really interested in
how she got her seat next to him, because she seems like a
sleath
ninja
agent of failure to me.
What do you think the qualifications were for the women that
sat
next to
O'Clinton?
What were GW's qualifications to sit in the classroom at Yale
University,
entrance scores and grades.
have you researched them?
whit
or Harvard Business School? He was a rich white man.
Aaron Hirshberg
Let's take a reasonable look at the college entrance process:
1. Father an alum? YES
2. Father rich? YES
3. Father a senator? YES
4. Kid attended rich kid prep school YES 5. Grades, achievement,
potential? Who cares!
BINGO
apparently you are ignorant of what his entrance scores and grades WERE.
but of course this didn;t stop you from opining.
how typical.
whit
"How typical" indeed. In truth, occasionally worked WITH, not IN the
admissions office of a US News and World Report "Top 25 school" for over a
decade. But I've lunched with them enough. Trust me: #1, #2, #3, #4 ARE
VERY significant. With #1, #2, #3, #4, "WHO CARES" about #5? I believe
that is what I wrote. Get real. You really that naive about the politics
of college admissions to think it is all achievement based, Comrade?
Achievement for Ivy admission is crucial for the working/middle class kid
from an Iowa public high whose father is a carpenter or accountant.
Given the rich alum senator father and Dubyas HORSESHIT freshman grades it
wouldn't surprise me to learn he had a personal tutor following him along
like the school's star quarterback. Anybody research THAT?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
