Quiz for kdm...
KlownHuntr
Since you seem to have forgotten recent US History in all the excitement of
your candidate's apparent rise to power, here's a little quiz.
Match the recent elected US President with his lies and/or crimes...
1) Richard Nixon, Republican.
2) George Bush the Elder, Republican.
3) Ronald Reagan, Republican.
4) Jimmy Carter, Democrat.
5) Bill Clinton, Democrat.
A) "I am not a crook." He authorized burglary and smear campaigns in order to
get re-elected.
B) His campaign stole Jimmy Carter's debate prep material and used it to prep
him. He also authorized Iran/Contra in direct violation of US law.
C) "I didn't have sex with that woman."
D) "I lusted after her in my heart."
E) "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES." Also a figure in Iran/Contra.
Honor.
Integrity.
Sorry, broad tax cuts are off the table before the table even gets set. Welcome
to a bigger verision of the Kingdom of Texas.
~KB
exlaw...@my-deja.com
E) "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES." Also a figure in Iran/Contra.
I think its funny that when a Republican says, "You know what?
Circumstances have changed." and then compromises with the Democrats
for a small tax increase, that's a bad thing. I thought that's how
government was supposed to work.
Jack
PS. How did Bush figure in Iran\Contra, specifically?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Father Luke
Jack
======\\=====
Right from the beginning. 1980 .
The Reagan-Bush campaign made a secret pact with Iran to delay release
of the Embassy hostages until after the November election, in return
for future covert arms sales. Known as the 'October surprise.'
Bush Sr. then went on to thwart Pat Paulsen's Campaign for the
Presidency, thereby tying this thread to ACS.
Father Luke
A madstork
Match the recent elected US President with his lies and/or crimes...
1) Richard Nixon, Republican.
2) George Bush the Elder, Republican.
3) Ronald Reagan, Republican.
4) Jimmy Carter, Democrat.
5) Bill Clinton, Democrat.
Daer Kevin,
1. I am familiar with US history, Just not Kevin "Jimmy Carter won the Nobel
Prize" Burke history. You've already published this little list several times.
It was lame the first time. It gets lamer every time.
2. I dont have time today. Yesterday was great hang gliding weather (1 hour 15
minutes in my UP Comet 185). Today should be more of the same. So, just type
messages to yourself, you know, like ya usually do.
3. In my fucking dreams this whole country is run like Texas. For one, the
legislature knows their place in the world,
and only meets every other year. No state income tax. What you make is your
business.
"Ladies Gentleman, The President of the United States, George W. Bush." Get
used to it, Barnum Boy.
kdm
A madstork
"Right from the beginning. 1980 .
The Reagan-Bush campaign made a secret pact with Iran to delay release
of the Embassy hostages until after the November election, in return
for future covert arms sales. Known as the 'October surprise.'"
Fascinating. Where can I see the documentation that makes this historical fact,
rather than speculation?
kdm
Tim Mitchell
[snip]
> D) "I lusted after her in my heart."
No no no! First off, it was "I've lusted after many women in my heart,"
and was a confession in Carter's Playboy interview, not a lie.
Second off, Jimmy Carter told the single BEST lie an American President
has ever told.
That is, that the bunny he whacked with an oar was some sort of KILLER
BUNNY that was headed STRAIGHT FOR HIS BOAT and was threatening him with
GREVIOUS BODILY HARM!!!
That's maybe the GREATEST lie ANYONE'S ever told.
--Tim Mitchell
Stuart O. Bronstein
I think Luke was pulling his hair over your eyes.
Stu
Stuart O. Bronstein
Tim Mitchell wrote:
> Second off, Jimmy Carter told the single BEST lie an American President
> has ever told.
>
> That is, that the bunny he whacked with an oar was some sort of KILLER
> BUNNY that was headed STRAIGHT FOR HIS BOAT and was threatening him with
> GREVIOUS BODILY HARM!!!
Hey, were you ever bitten by a bunny? It HURTS!
Carter's problem was he neglected to call Joanie (Bunnykiller) Coyote
for help.
Stu
Lauren Verge
Father Luke <YouCanG...@AOL.CoM> wrote in message
news:u4a72t8cr55svb3of...@4ax.com...
>
> Bush Sr. then went on to thwart Pat Paulsen's Campaign for the
> Presidency,
THAT BASTARD!
Laphboy
>E) "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES."
>
>I think its funny that when a Republican says, "You know what?
>Circumstances have changed." and then compromises with the Democrats
>for a small tax increase, that's a bad thing. I thought that's how
>government was supposed to work.
Hey, Jack!
I think the thing that bugged me most about the "no new taxes" pledge was
that everyone knew it was economically impossible, including many Republicans I
talked to during the Bush/Dukakis campaign.
A lawyer at the company I worked for at the time told me he knew Bush was
lying about no new taxes, but that he would take a liar over a Democrat any
day.
I think it was pointed out in this very forum several months ago that no
President has the ability to make tax laws on their own, so any time a
candidate tells you he/she will definitely lower or not raise taxes, they're
pretty much running on a platform they can't back up, whether they be
Republican, Democrat, or otherwise...
steve gelder
http://www.stevegelder.com
Questions about comedy? Check the FAQ first!
http://members.aol.com/comedyfaq/faq.html
Cos McCowboy
fr1.aol.com>:
>Where can I see the documentation that makes this historical fact,
>rather than speculation?
I'd try "www.IHeardItSomewhere.com" or "www.It'sJustCommonKnowledge.com"...
How is it ever going to get substantiated in a courtroom-acceptable format
for guys like that? C'mon, the only time a world leader goes down for
anything, it's after a loooong string of rampant abuses (see Nixon or Capone)
and not just from one or five little incidents. The deal regarding the
Iranian hostages is something for which there was means, motive and
opportunity (Bush was head of the CIA prior to taking the VP office, and the
hostages were a stone around Carter's neck), and the hostages were released
the DAY AFTER the inauguration (or election?).
I can't remember every detail, I was 10 at the time, but I still remember
every nightly newscast starting with the big "Day 374" <or whatever> sign.
--
Perfectly Normal Industries: serving Fortune 500's comedy needs since 1998!
- Are YOU paying too much for your comedy?
"---------- Official markings only below this line ----------"
Cos McCowboy
<3A23D3C0...@graphicacts.com>:
>BUNNY that was headed STRAIGHT FOR HIS BOAT and was threatening him with
>GREVIOUS BODILY HARM!!!
He was hacking Monty Python. That was his crime, and everybody knows it.
"That rabbit's dynamite!"
A madstork
"How is it ever going to get substantiated in a courtroom-acceptable format
for guys like that? "
Ahhh. I see. A cut and dried case of "We dont need no stinking proof! You did
it cuz we just know you fucking did it!" Very popular with prosecutors in
communist countries.
So, if Bush "had" to know what North was doing to free American hostages, since
Jesus H. Carter didnt get it done, does this mean Clinton "had" to know Reno
was sending armed federal forces in full riot gear to shoot up the compound
full of women and children?
kdm
Laphboy
(snip)
> Reno
>was sending armed federal forces in full riot gear to shoot up the compound
>full of women and children?
I'm not sure of the actual numbers, but there was a percentage of grown men,
armed with many, many, many weapons inside that compound.
So the phrase "*full* of women and children" is statistically incorrect.
Carry on.
A madstork
" I'm not sure of the actual numbers, but there was a percentage of grown men,
armed with many, many, many weapons inside that compound.
So the phrase "*full* of women and children" is statistically incorrect."
Dear laph,
Credit should be given where it is due. The above quote comes from court
documented testimony of one Lt. William Calley Jr. concerning the "events" at
My Lai, Viet Nam. Footnote, Man! Footnote!
carry on more,
kdm
KOMTURN
>> Reno was sending armed federal forces in full riot gear to shoot up the
compound
full of women and children?<
To the Libs, it doesn't count as a shooting unless you can hold them up to
light and see thru them.
JBT
i go now
A madstork
"
To the Libs, it doesn't count as a shooting unless you can hold them up to
light and see thru them."
Oh, dude. That was fucking sweet.
kdm
Will Everett
> <snipped stuff>
Dave,
All the proof one needs is in the Big Government Activity and Coloring Book, the
one that comes with the big crayons, at K-Mart and other fine department stores
near you.
On your way out of the store, be sure to drop a few pennies into the salvation army
dispenser, because that's how the Martian Contras are going to be funded, what with
their war on Earth probes taking such a toll on their fragile ecosystem.
-Will Everett
KlownHuntr
conviction? Never happened, and wasn't subsequently overturned on a
technicality, either. Shredding? Balderdash, I say!
I guess history books and encyclopedias the world over have been slandering the
Reagan administration for the past 15 years or so over something that
never...ever...happened.
Let Dubious George lead you to Neverland, kiddies. All you need is a little of
the 'Fairy Dust' left over from his college days, and you can FLY!
~KB
Cos McCowboy
bk1.aol.com>:
>A cut and dried case of "We dont need no stinking proof! You did
>it cuz we just know you fucking did it!" Very popular with prosecutors in
>communist countries.
Well, first off, I'm not the guy you're arguing with... But mainly I was just
pointing out that it's kind of a cheap-ass debating trick to demand proof of
something which, whether true or not, there won't EVER be public proof of.
If you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have the law, argue the law;
If you have neither, pound your keyboard.
Cos McCowboy
cn1.aol.com>:
>So the phrase "*full* of women and children" is statistically incorrect.
Ah ha - it wasn't a lie, it was a terminological inexactitude!
(from General Alexander Haig, if I'm not mistaken - Reagan's Sec. o'State!)
A madstork
"Ollie North
conviction? "
You weren't wailing about North, You wailed about the "guilt" of Reagan and
Bush. My question remains, where is the documentation that makes the Guilt of
Reagan and Bush fact, rather than "History according to Burke" speculation?
I think Jimmy Carter should have won the Nobel prize, I really do. Hell, Yassar
Arafat won it, why not the peanut farmer.
kdm
A madstork
"Well, first off, I'm not the guy you're arguing with... But mainly I was just
pointing out that it's kind of a cheap-ass debating trick to demand proof of
something which, whether true or not, there won't EVER be public proof of.
If you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have the law, argue the law;
If you have neither, pound your keyboard."
Translation: "We dont need no stinking proof! You did
>it cuz we just know you fucking did it!"
kdm
KlownHuntr
Reagan and Bush. My question remains, where is the documentation that makes the
Guilt of Reagan and Bush fact, rather than "History according to Burke"
speculation?>>>>
Ollie shredded the documentation, remember? Well, Ollie and Fawn Hall. If
you're asking me to track down the pieces and glue them together, then I'll
have to ask you for $50 million.
Seriously, Dave, go consult an encyclopedia...unless they're all also part of
the vast left-wing conspiracy which also includes massive partisan vote
counting in Florida, the entirety of the non-Rush media, and Little League.
(Of course, of Reagan/Bush HADN'T had a hand in Iran/Contra, then why aren't
the same Wascally Wepublicans who are trying to get Ronnie on Mt. Rushmore
suing the encyclopedias to clear His good name?)
~KB
KlownHuntr
Guilt of Reagan and Bush fact>>>>
Besides, Dave, you guys got nothing on Clinton, yet convicted him anyway...at
least in the court of popular opinion.
Sauce for the goose, eh?
~KB
KOMTURN
least in the court of popular opinion.
Sauce for the goose, eh?
>~KB
Didn't have to get anything on Clinton, Clinton got it on her.
Sauce FROM the goose, eh!
JBT
i go now
A madstork
"Besides, Dave, you guys got nothing on Clinton, yet convicted him anyway...at
least in the court of popular opinion."
Nothin on Clinton... well, unless you count the video tape of the brilliant
Yale educated lawyer, former Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, and
sitting president of the United States lying under oath. Maybe that's what did
him in in the court of popular opinion. That and that finger wagging scolding
he gave us on prime time TV.
Oh Kev,
I guess your right. I have feigned ignorance long enough. We should have let
those hostages sit over there in Iran and fucking rot. That's what the stupid
cocksuckers get for serving their country in the American embassy in some
shithole like Iran. That would have been the thing to do. Leave them over
their to be starved and tortured until Congress got around to legislating them
home. Maybe they would have lived that long. Oliver North should have been
executed for following the noble Marine tradition of never leaving anybody on
the battlefield, and having the balls to bring those people home without
risking a single American life. Even though everyone "knows" Oliver North is
nothing but a goddamn traitor, I bet he still gets a nice card and fruitcake
every Christmas from the former hostages. I would also bet the brave members of
that Congress receive none. You wouldn't know honor if it swam up and bit you
in the ass.
you win, leave me alone, or else I'll send Bevins to your house to kick you in
the dick!!
Reagan was a God!!!!
kdm
Rich Barber
Hey, Dave! I've girded my loins just in case, but I don't think that's
the point. Everybody, including Mickey Mouse (remember how he flipped
off Iran), wanted the hostages home. The problem was, the President
and his men overstepped their boundaries and assumed power that wasn't
theirs. That's a dangerous precedence to set. What if next time, they
overstep their authority for something not quite as noble as freeing
hostages?
Rich
In article <20001129151405...@ng-fj1.aol.com>, A madstork
kinetic
"A madstork" <amad...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001128151101...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
> cos wrote
>
> "How is it ever going to get substantiated in a courtroom-acceptable
format
> for guys like that? "
>
did
> it cuz we just know you fucking did it!" Very popular with prosecutors in
> communist countries.
>
since
> Jesus H. Carter didnt get it done, does this mean Clinton "had" to know
> was sending armed federal forces in full riot gear to shoot up the
compound
> full of women and children?
>
Again, not picking sides, but if I did something goofy at work, my boss
would be responsible. It wouldn't matter if he knew what I was doing or not.
For example, let's say that I didn't want to run to the wholesaler for
rubber tape, so I tried to "get by" using lots and lots of electrical tape.
And, let's say that my decision (without my boss' knowledge) ended up almost
killing a city hydro worker. Hydro would charge my boss, and he would be
responsible. Why is the "Commander in Chief" not in responsible. Is it
political suicide to say, "I had no knowledge of the events, but as
"Commander in Chief" I must accept responsibility for their actions."?
~ Jamie West
KOMTURN
would be responsible. It wouldn't matter if he knew what I was doing or not.
>For example, let's say that I didn't want to run to the wholesaler for
>rubber tape, so I tried to "get by" using lots and lots of electrical tape.
>And, let's say that my decision (without my boss' knowledge) ended up almost
>killing a city hydro worker. Hydro would charge my boss, and he would be
responsible.
That isn't true at all and you know it!
You were negligent, not your boss and therefore YOU are responsible and liable.
Don't throw bullshit like this out there.
JBT
i go now
kinetic
"KOMTURN" <kom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001129233916...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
Actually it wasn't me, but it did happen - and the company was responsible.
Ok, if you want to argue semantics, "I'm responsible" for screwing up, but
as a representative from an organization, my boss is responsible for
whatever I do. Sure, I am too, but that doesn't absolve my boss. For
example, when that chick spilled hot coffee in her lap, who was liable
"Skippy" the drive-thru guy, or the McDonald's Corp?
Anyway, I appreciate your half-thought of a response. Hopefully it'll draw
Burke away from his new "Rush Doppelganger" persona.
~ Jamie West
Prinnoi
> That isn't true at all and you know it!
> Don't throw bullshit like this out there. ~komturn
Shhhh, the Canadian's have seen one another.
Prrrrr
--
[The Boss Of Everything Excluding Canada & Alaska, they belong to Killy]
KOMTURN
>but it did happen - and the company was responsible.<
The company/not your boss is responsible yes for damages, because it is their
product and or service but criminal charges would be yours to pay because of
the negligence on your part.
>For example, when that chick spilled hot coffee in her lap, who was liable
"Skippy" the drive-thru guy, or the McDonald's Corp?<
McDonalds was because the coffee was being made by "Skippy" under
their/McDonalds temperature standards. Skippy was making it as per spec.
If "Skippy" was to assault the customer/throw the coffee on her, I'm sure
McDonalds would be the one's who get sued [the deep pocket grab] but it would
be ol "Skippy" who goes to jail.
JBT
i go now
Rich Barber
<Pri...@madstove.comshum> wrote:
> Shhhh, the Canadian's have seen one another.
Heh!
>
> Prrrrr
> --
> [The Boss Of Everything Excluding Canada & Alaska, they belong to Killy]
I need Mexico, Prinny. I've got plans.
Rich
Big Tom
Actually, if a court held that the boss failed to properly monitor his work,
then the boss could very well be held criminally liable.
--
Big Tom
The nonhacker rides again
www.telerama.com/~tsmith/
KOMTURN
>then the boss could very well be held criminally liable.
>Big Tom
Perhaps, but I believe that wasn't the scenerio that was put forth by Jamie.
JBT
i go now
kinetic
>
> >but it did happen - and the company was responsible.<
>
their
> product and or service but criminal charges would be yours to pay because
of
> the negligence on your part.
Fuck it john, I've been down this path with you before. You're absolutely
right - you've convinced me. You weren't there, and have no fucking idea
what your talking about, but your absolutely correct! Feel free and purchase
more chalk for your "wins" column. Just stop splitting hairs and let someone
answer the question: "Why is the commander-in-chief not responsible for the
people he is commanding?"
~ Jamie West
KOMTURN
commanding?"
~ Jamie West<
Do the math ...
He's the Commander and Chief, how many thousands are under him?
Do you think he should be held responsible for every incompetent using
electricians tape?
JBT
i go now
KlownHuntr
He's the Commander and Chief, how many thousands are under him?
Do you think he should be held responsible for every incompetent using
electricians tape?>>>
Well, no, but how does a Lt. Col. in the Marines get access to the Iranian
government? How does that same Lt. Col. acquire the cooperation of everyone
needed to move said arms to Iraq? How does he move the money? How does he do
all this without his superiors finding out and stopping him? Unless, of course,
he was acting under orders.
Remember, Ethan Allen...of Revolutionary War fame...was tried for treason. He
was accused of much the same crime as Benedict Arnold, and Oliver North for
that matter. When he came up for trial, he claimed he was acting under sealed
orders. When asked to prove this, he confessed that he couldn't read, and
produced the staff officer who read the orders to him. He was acquitted, and
now his name graces a string of fine furniture stores.
And who did those orders come from? George Washington hisself. So the "Ollie
acting under orders, then disavowed when caught" secenario is neither unlikely,
nor without precedent in American history.
~KB
KOMTURN
electricians tape?
JBT<
>Well, no
~KB<
I'm glad we agree!
JBT
i go now
kinetic
> >Why is the commander-in-chief not responsible for the people he is
> commanding?"
>
> ~ Jamie West<
>
> He's the Commander and Chief, how many thousands are under him?
> electricians tape?
>
> JBT
John, I'm going to take one more kick at the can.... Suppose Mr. Smith is
the CEO of a successful multi-national sprocket making company. However, one
year, Joe Whoever decides to do something as part of being a Sprocket Inc.
employee (executive, stockboy, whatever) and Sprocket Inc. gets a tarnished
image because of something Joe did. Doesn't it make sense for the CEO to say
something along the lines of, "I had no idea what Joe Whoever was doing, but
as CEO I must be accountable."?
He's not admitting fault for what happened, but that it was able to happen
while he (Mr. Smith) was running the company. Obviously the CEO can't
control everything done by every employee, but shouldn't he say something
along the lines of, "Checks and balances will have to be put into place to
ensure this does not happen again." Instead of "Nobody can prove anything."?
~ Jamie West
(Five bucks says you'll miss the point and argue that there's no such thing
as a multi-national sprocket company, or something like that).
KOMTURN
Give it a west Jamie.
JBT
i go now