Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Lawmakers Push to Impeach Disgraced Attorney General Holder
26 views
Skip to first unread message
Ray Keller
Nov 11, 2013, 5:01:42 AM11/11/13
to
Lawmakers Push to Impeach Disgraced Attorney General Holder
http://www.thenewamerican.com/ ^ | November 9, 2013 | Alex Newman
Posted on Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:05:54 PM by Whenifhow
After having already been held in criminal contempt of Congress for an
ongoing cover-up of the Obama administration's deadly "Fast and Furious"
gun-running program, disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder is facing a fresh
challenge: an effort by some GOP lawmakers to impeach him before the end of
the year. According to media reports, the bid to force Holder out of power,
if successful, would represent the second impeachment of a cabinet member in
American history. Meanwhile, the movement to impeach Obama himself is growing
stronger by the day as well - both in Congress and among everyday Americans.
News that a group of Republicans was finally planning to do something about
Holder's lawlessness and defiance was first unveiled during a town-hall
meeting by Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.), a liberty-minded freshman in Congress who
worked as a veterinarian before taking office. "It's to get him out of
office - impeachment," Yoho was quoted as saying about the plan in local
newspapers, which reported that the audience also applauded the lawmaker's
positions on a number of other issues such as opposition to ObamaCare and the
wild federal deficit.
A formal resolution to impeach Holder is already being drawn up, sources on
Capitol Hill said. "It will probably be when we get back in [Washington],"
Yoho continued during the town-hall session with constituents in the town of
Chiefland. "It will be before the end of the year. This will go to the
speaker and the speaker will decide if it comes up or not." While it was not
immediately clear which other lawmakers were behind the effort, the list of
outraged lawmakers is vast. By July, over 135 congressmen had co-sponsored a
resolution calling on Holder to resign immediately. Public fury continues to
grow, too.
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who introduced the no-confidence resolution,
summarized a few of the reasons in a speech on the House floor. "Mr. Holder's
violations of the law are egregious and he should not be immune from the
prosecution or given license to act without restraint," Gosar explained. "An
ordinary citizen would go to jail for selling guns to Mexican drug cartels.
An ordinary citizen would go to jail for secretly obtaining phone records and
emails. An ordinary citizen would go to jail for lying to Congress about an
investigation. What would happen to an ordinary citizen for lying to a judge?
This is just a small part of what Attorney General Eric Holder is responsible
for."
According to Rep. Yoho's chief of staff, Cat Cammack, the Florida Republican
and his colleagues are pursuing impeachment because of a variety of
scandals - primarily the administration's "Fast and Furious" scheme to arm
Mexican drug lords, which left hundreds dead, including U.S. law enforcement
officers. "Obviously there is a lot of frustration with our attorney
general," Cammack said. "You can name the botched programs. Fast and Furious
has been one of the number one complaints we get in our office, and why no
one has been held accountable."
So far, Holder has managed to escape prosecution after being held in contempt
only because the Justice Department he leads refuses to prosecute its boss.
However, without a pardon from Obama, more than a few legal experts and
activists have said the disgraced official could eventually end up behind
bars. If House Republicans are to succeed in impeaching Holder by the end of
the year, however, they are going to have to act quickly. According to news
reports, there are only 16 legislative days scheduled for the remainder of
2013.
A lot will depend on House Speaker John Boehner, too, who has remained silent
on the matter thus far. Despite occasional conservative rhetoric, the top
Republican in Washington has come under heavy fire from grassroots leaders
for continually selling out, caving in, and protecting the Obama
administration from accountability. The most recent example came just last
month, when Rep. Boehner capitulated completely to the president's extortion
tactics by agreeing to fund ObamaCare - even though polls showed a majority
of Americans supported partially shutting down the government until the
healthcare takeover was defunded.
Holder "should be immediately impeached," noted the Capitalism Institute,
citing Fast and Furious, the targeting of journalists who challenge Obama,
and the fact that the attorney general has "constantly trampled" on the
Constitution. One of the biggest challenges, though, will be getting it past
Speaker Boehner. "We've constantly said that John Boehner has to go, and this
is a good example of why that's still the case," continued the popular
market-oriented group. "Boehner is in a position where he can pretend to
fight Obama most of the time - but defend him whenever it actually counts."
While public pressure to oust the disgraced Justice Department boss has been
escalating for years, successfully impeaching Holder would be historic. In
more than two centuries of American history, only one U.S. cabinet-level
official has been impeached: Secretary of War William Belknap in the Ulysses
S. Grant administration. In 1876, after Belknap was accused of receiving
bribes, the House voted to impeach him. The vote took place despite the fact
that the war secretary had resigned earlier the same day. After Belknap's
impeachment, the Senate tried him, but he was acquitted when the vote to
convict fell short of the required two-thirds majority.
Led mostly by Republican congressmen, the effort to hold Obama's attorney
general accountable has been building up for years. Even before he took
office, scandal had long been swirling around Holder, who was caught on video
proposing a tax-funded propaganda program to "brainwash," in his words, the
American public against gun rights. He also played a key role in securing
presidential pardons for billionaire fugitive Marc Rich and Marxist
terrorists with the Obama-linked Weather Underground. Immediately upon his
assuming control of the Justice Department, new controversies began blowing
up, and a seemingly never-ending series of increasingly serious scandals have
plagued his controversial tenure ever since.
The turning point for members of Congress on both sides of the aisle,
however, appears to have come when Holder unlawfully defied a congressional
subpoena ordering him to hand over documents on Fast and Furious. That
federal program, which is still often characterized inaccurately in the
establishment press as a "botched" investigation, put thousands of
high-powered American weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Holder
and his underlings were also caught lying about the scheme repeatedly in
congressional hearings - while under oath, potentially committing perjury -
and in letters to lawmakers.
Official documents later revealed that the supposed "drug lords" being
"investigated" were already on the FBI's payroll. Government records also
emerged showing that the administration was plotting to use the Fast and
Furious violence to intensify its attack on the unalienable right to keep and
bear arms guaranteed under the Second Amendment. Eventually, with public
outrage boiling over and U.S. law enforcement officers murdered with some of
the weapons in question, House Republicans and even some Democrats decided to
hold the attorney general in criminal contempt of Congress last summer. The
offense should land the perpetrator behind bars.
Despite becoming the first attorney general in U.S. history to hold the
dubious honor, Holder has been clinging to power with the president's
support, and even stepping up the lawlessness. Incredibly, earlier this year,
the Justice Department he leads was exposed arguing that Obama has the
authority to kill Americans without even a semblance of due process. He has
also been unlawfully bullying state governments on everything from guns to
voter ID. According to the non-partisan group Judicial Watch, Holder is
actually among the most corrupt officials in Washington, D.C. - and there
were, of course, plenty to choose from.
More recently, even the administration's traditional allies in the
establishment media were outraged to learn that the attorney general had
approved unconstitutional spying against Associated Press journalists. "There
can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the
telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," noted AP
President Gary Pruitt. In an affidavit indicting a federal employee for
talking to reporters, meanwhile, Holder's out-of-control Justice Department
claimed a Fox News journalist was a "co-conspirator" in the case -
potentially setting him up for prosecution merely for doing his
constitutionally protected job.
While impeaching Holder has taken center stage for the moment, the push to
impeach Obama is accelerating, too. From highway overpasses to the halls of
Congress, countless activists and over a dozen U.S. lawmakers are turning up
the heat, having become convinced that ousting the president may be the only
remaining option to stop the reign of lawlessness and the never-ending parade
of constitutional abuses. Numerous impeachable offenses have been cited by
lawmakers and legal experts.
Recent polls suggested that about half of Americans would support impeachment
for some of the most extreme scandals - Benghazi, spying on journalists, and
using the IRS to persecute conservatives. Meanwhile, the new book Impeachable
Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama From Office is being distributed
on Capitol Hill by Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas). Some lawmakers have said
publicly that there are probably enough votes in the House to impeach Obama
already. Whether the president or his attorney general is removed from power,
though, still depends on how much more the American people are willing to
tolerate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
2A is the right to shoot tyrants, not deer.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/ ^ | November 9, 2013 | Alex Newman
Posted on Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:05:54 PM by Whenifhow
After having already been held in criminal contempt of Congress for an
ongoing cover-up of the Obama administration's deadly "Fast and Furious"
gun-running program, disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder is facing a fresh
challenge: an effort by some GOP lawmakers to impeach him before the end of
the year. According to media reports, the bid to force Holder out of power,
if successful, would represent the second impeachment of a cabinet member in
American history. Meanwhile, the movement to impeach Obama himself is growing
stronger by the day as well - both in Congress and among everyday Americans.
News that a group of Republicans was finally planning to do something about
Holder's lawlessness and defiance was first unveiled during a town-hall
meeting by Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.), a liberty-minded freshman in Congress who
worked as a veterinarian before taking office. "It's to get him out of
office - impeachment," Yoho was quoted as saying about the plan in local
newspapers, which reported that the audience also applauded the lawmaker's
positions on a number of other issues such as opposition to ObamaCare and the
wild federal deficit.
A formal resolution to impeach Holder is already being drawn up, sources on
Capitol Hill said. "It will probably be when we get back in [Washington],"
Yoho continued during the town-hall session with constituents in the town of
Chiefland. "It will be before the end of the year. This will go to the
speaker and the speaker will decide if it comes up or not." While it was not
immediately clear which other lawmakers were behind the effort, the list of
outraged lawmakers is vast. By July, over 135 congressmen had co-sponsored a
resolution calling on Holder to resign immediately. Public fury continues to
grow, too.
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who introduced the no-confidence resolution,
summarized a few of the reasons in a speech on the House floor. "Mr. Holder's
violations of the law are egregious and he should not be immune from the
prosecution or given license to act without restraint," Gosar explained. "An
ordinary citizen would go to jail for selling guns to Mexican drug cartels.
An ordinary citizen would go to jail for secretly obtaining phone records and
emails. An ordinary citizen would go to jail for lying to Congress about an
investigation. What would happen to an ordinary citizen for lying to a judge?
This is just a small part of what Attorney General Eric Holder is responsible
for."
According to Rep. Yoho's chief of staff, Cat Cammack, the Florida Republican
and his colleagues are pursuing impeachment because of a variety of
scandals - primarily the administration's "Fast and Furious" scheme to arm
Mexican drug lords, which left hundreds dead, including U.S. law enforcement
officers. "Obviously there is a lot of frustration with our attorney
general," Cammack said. "You can name the botched programs. Fast and Furious
has been one of the number one complaints we get in our office, and why no
one has been held accountable."
So far, Holder has managed to escape prosecution after being held in contempt
only because the Justice Department he leads refuses to prosecute its boss.
However, without a pardon from Obama, more than a few legal experts and
activists have said the disgraced official could eventually end up behind
bars. If House Republicans are to succeed in impeaching Holder by the end of
the year, however, they are going to have to act quickly. According to news
reports, there are only 16 legislative days scheduled for the remainder of
2013.
A lot will depend on House Speaker John Boehner, too, who has remained silent
on the matter thus far. Despite occasional conservative rhetoric, the top
Republican in Washington has come under heavy fire from grassroots leaders
for continually selling out, caving in, and protecting the Obama
administration from accountability. The most recent example came just last
month, when Rep. Boehner capitulated completely to the president's extortion
tactics by agreeing to fund ObamaCare - even though polls showed a majority
of Americans supported partially shutting down the government until the
healthcare takeover was defunded.
Holder "should be immediately impeached," noted the Capitalism Institute,
citing Fast and Furious, the targeting of journalists who challenge Obama,
and the fact that the attorney general has "constantly trampled" on the
Constitution. One of the biggest challenges, though, will be getting it past
Speaker Boehner. "We've constantly said that John Boehner has to go, and this
is a good example of why that's still the case," continued the popular
market-oriented group. "Boehner is in a position where he can pretend to
fight Obama most of the time - but defend him whenever it actually counts."
While public pressure to oust the disgraced Justice Department boss has been
escalating for years, successfully impeaching Holder would be historic. In
more than two centuries of American history, only one U.S. cabinet-level
official has been impeached: Secretary of War William Belknap in the Ulysses
S. Grant administration. In 1876, after Belknap was accused of receiving
bribes, the House voted to impeach him. The vote took place despite the fact
that the war secretary had resigned earlier the same day. After Belknap's
impeachment, the Senate tried him, but he was acquitted when the vote to
convict fell short of the required two-thirds majority.
Led mostly by Republican congressmen, the effort to hold Obama's attorney
general accountable has been building up for years. Even before he took
office, scandal had long been swirling around Holder, who was caught on video
proposing a tax-funded propaganda program to "brainwash," in his words, the
American public against gun rights. He also played a key role in securing
presidential pardons for billionaire fugitive Marc Rich and Marxist
terrorists with the Obama-linked Weather Underground. Immediately upon his
assuming control of the Justice Department, new controversies began blowing
up, and a seemingly never-ending series of increasingly serious scandals have
plagued his controversial tenure ever since.
The turning point for members of Congress on both sides of the aisle,
however, appears to have come when Holder unlawfully defied a congressional
subpoena ordering him to hand over documents on Fast and Furious. That
federal program, which is still often characterized inaccurately in the
establishment press as a "botched" investigation, put thousands of
high-powered American weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Holder
and his underlings were also caught lying about the scheme repeatedly in
congressional hearings - while under oath, potentially committing perjury -
and in letters to lawmakers.
Official documents later revealed that the supposed "drug lords" being
"investigated" were already on the FBI's payroll. Government records also
emerged showing that the administration was plotting to use the Fast and
Furious violence to intensify its attack on the unalienable right to keep and
bear arms guaranteed under the Second Amendment. Eventually, with public
outrage boiling over and U.S. law enforcement officers murdered with some of
the weapons in question, House Republicans and even some Democrats decided to
hold the attorney general in criminal contempt of Congress last summer. The
offense should land the perpetrator behind bars.
Despite becoming the first attorney general in U.S. history to hold the
dubious honor, Holder has been clinging to power with the president's
support, and even stepping up the lawlessness. Incredibly, earlier this year,
the Justice Department he leads was exposed arguing that Obama has the
authority to kill Americans without even a semblance of due process. He has
also been unlawfully bullying state governments on everything from guns to
voter ID. According to the non-partisan group Judicial Watch, Holder is
actually among the most corrupt officials in Washington, D.C. - and there
were, of course, plenty to choose from.
More recently, even the administration's traditional allies in the
establishment media were outraged to learn that the attorney general had
approved unconstitutional spying against Associated Press journalists. "There
can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the
telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," noted AP
President Gary Pruitt. In an affidavit indicting a federal employee for
talking to reporters, meanwhile, Holder's out-of-control Justice Department
claimed a Fox News journalist was a "co-conspirator" in the case -
potentially setting him up for prosecution merely for doing his
constitutionally protected job.
While impeaching Holder has taken center stage for the moment, the push to
impeach Obama is accelerating, too. From highway overpasses to the halls of
Congress, countless activists and over a dozen U.S. lawmakers are turning up
the heat, having become convinced that ousting the president may be the only
remaining option to stop the reign of lawlessness and the never-ending parade
of constitutional abuses. Numerous impeachable offenses have been cited by
lawmakers and legal experts.
Recent polls suggested that about half of Americans would support impeachment
for some of the most extreme scandals - Benghazi, spying on journalists, and
using the IRS to persecute conservatives. Meanwhile, the new book Impeachable
Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama From Office is being distributed
on Capitol Hill by Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas). Some lawmakers have said
publicly that there are probably enough votes in the House to impeach Obama
already. Whether the president or his attorney general is removed from power,
though, still depends on how much more the American people are willing to
tolerate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
2A is the right to shoot tyrants, not deer.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Nov 11, 2013, 7:06:54 AM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 03:01:42 -0700, "Ray Keller"
<Left...@desperate.com> wrote:
>Lawmakers Push to Impeach Disgraced Attorney General Holder
>http://www.thenewamerican.com/ ^ | November 9, 2013 | Alex Newman
>
>Posted on Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:05:54 PM by Whenifhow
>
>After having already been held in criminal contempt of Congress
Nothing but more rightwing babble and wet dreams.
<Left...@desperate.com> wrote:
>Lawmakers Push to Impeach Disgraced Attorney General Holder
>http://www.thenewamerican.com/ ^ | November 9, 2013 | Alex Newman
>
>Posted on Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:05:54 PM by Whenifhow
>
>After having already been held in criminal contempt of Congress
Impeachment requires a 2/3 vote of the House followed by a trial in
the Senate. Neither of these will happen.
This is nothing but a continuation of rightwing attacks on Obama. If
you can't kill the President, kill the people around him . . . impeach
Holder, call for Sebelius to resign . . . nothing but
rightwingerdinger gamesmanship.
deep
Nov 11, 2013, 8:52:35 AM11/11/13
to
>Recent polls suggested that about half of Americans would support impeachment
>for some of the most extreme scandals - Benghazi, spying on journalists, lying to Congress to invade Iraq...
Guy Fawkes
Nov 11, 2013, 10:34:22 AM11/11/13
to
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:jvh189tag1ghoprpb...@6ax.com:
Yeah, you like lawlessness. it helps your "cause". Better impeachment than
bloodshed.
--
Republicans really aren't human beings, so there is no harm, no foul.
Kirby Grant - Nov 3, 2013
Telling us his views of the world.
news:jvh189tag1ghoprpb...@6ax.com:
bloodshed.
--
Republicans really aren't human beings, so there is no harm, no foul.
Kirby Grant - Nov 3, 2013
Telling us his views of the world.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 11, 2013, 10:46:27 AM11/11/13
to
>
>
>
While Dudu silently nods in approval.
RogerN
Nov 11, 2013, 11:52:06 AM11/11/13
to
"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
news:ttu1891o5am8pcuh1...@4ax.com...
I found one of their pictures, might be Dudu, but it's a representation of
all of them.
https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/q71/1394123_389254577872043_152499831_n.jpg
RogerN
news:ttu1891o5am8pcuh1...@4ax.com...
all of them.
https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/q71/1394123_389254577872043_152499831_n.jpg
RogerN
Message has been deleted
Frank
Nov 11, 2013, 12:02:27 PM11/11/13
to
never impeach anyone in his administration.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Nov 11, 2013, 6:52:44 PM11/11/13
to
administration.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 11, 2013, 9:45:46 PM11/11/13
to
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:pdr289th936n7dv76...@6ax.com:
None of them did anything impeachable.
Not here in the real world, anyway.
news:pdr289th936n7dv76...@6ax.com:
Not here in the real world, anyway.
deep
Nov 11, 2013, 9:54:56 PM11/11/13
to
intentionally lied to Congress?
Winston_Smith
Nov 11, 2013, 10:05:58 PM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:34:22 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes wrote:
>Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote
Perhaps it is better, but you miss the point entirely - the likelyhood
is zero. The only way you can get your "better" is to junk the
Constitution and the entire legal system
- to save it.
Lawlessness to keep us from having lawlessness.
Might be a logical problem for you there.
>Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote
>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 03:01:42 -0700, "Ray Keller" wrote:
>>
>>>Lawmakers Push to Impeach Disgraced Attorney General Holder
>>>http://www.thenewamerican.com/
>>
>>>Lawmakers Push to Impeach Disgraced Attorney General Holder
>>>http://www.thenewamerican.com/
>> Impeachment requires a 2/3 vote of the House followed by a trial in
>> the Senate. Neither of these will happen.
>
>Yeah, you like lawlessness. ... Better impeachment than bloodshed.
>> the Senate. Neither of these will happen.
>
Perhaps it is better, but you miss the point entirely - the likelyhood
is zero. The only way you can get your "better" is to junk the
Constitution and the entire legal system
- to save it.
Lawlessness to keep us from having lawlessness.
Might be a logical problem for you there.
Winston_Smith
Nov 11, 2013, 10:14:41 PM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:54:56 -0700, deep wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>>Unfortunately you are right. The Obama sycophants in the Senate will
>>never impeach anyone in his administration.
>
>Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered that he
>intentionally lied to Congress?
Both cases depend on the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
> Frank wrote:
>>Unfortunately you are right. The Obama sycophants in the Senate will
>>never impeach anyone in his administration.
>
>Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered that he
>intentionally lied to Congress?
There are actually things that rise to that level and more commonly,
there are political actions that some people don't like and want to
flap their gums over.
Oh, and deep, Clinton intentionally lied to Congress over not having
sex with the WH bimbo dejure. He phrased it with a learned lawyers
language, but the message he gave was an out and out lie. He did get
impeached but not convicted.
Sadly, yammering "impeach" over every crack in the sidewalk has become
a staple in the Republican repertory. One of many reasons that real
conservatives abandoned them long ago.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 11, 2013, 10:24:17 PM11/11/13
to
deep wrote in news:s26389lvjhosmf7ms...@4ax.com:
Um, because such proof was never presented. At least here in the real
world.
world.
deep
Nov 11, 2013, 10:44:13 PM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:14:41 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:54:56 -0700, deep wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>
>>>Unfortunately you are right. The Obama sycophants in the Senate will
>>>never impeach anyone in his administration.
>>
>>Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered that he
>>intentionally lied to Congress?
>
>Both cases depend on the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
>There are actually things that rise to that level and more commonly,
>there are political actions that some people don't like and want to
>flap their gums over.
>
>
>Oh, and deep, Clinton intentionally lied to Congress over not having
>sex with the WH bimbo dejure. He phrased it with a learned lawyers
>language, but the message he gave was an out and out lie. He did get
>impeached but not convicted.
That was a pathetic, absurd witch hunt engineered by the right wing
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:54:56 -0700, deep wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>
>>>Unfortunately you are right. The Obama sycophants in the Senate will
>>>never impeach anyone in his administration.
>>
>>Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered that he
>>intentionally lied to Congress?
>
>Both cases depend on the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
>There are actually things that rise to that level and more commonly,
>there are political actions that some people don't like and want to
>flap their gums over.
>
>
>Oh, and deep, Clinton intentionally lied to Congress over not having
>sex with the WH bimbo dejure. He phrased it with a learned lawyers
>language, but the message he gave was an out and out lie. He did get
>impeached but not convicted.
desperate to destroy a populist liberal President. It never should
have happened in the first place.
>
>Sadly, yammering "impeach" over every crack in the sidewalk has become
>a staple in the Republican repertory. One of many reasons that real
>conservatives abandoned them long ago.
aggression which lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be a bit in a different class of
offenses than coping a blowjob from an intern.
M.I.Wakefield
Nov 11, 2013, 10:48:01 PM11/11/13
to
"deep" wrote in message news:i083891inghhu6k1c...@4ax.com...
> Something about lying to Congress to start an illegal war of
> aggression which lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and
> hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be a bit in a different class of
> offenses than coping a blowjob from an intern.
Not to mention torture as government policy.
> Something about lying to Congress to start an illegal war of
> aggression which lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and
> hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be a bit in a different class of
> offenses than coping a blowjob from an intern.
Winston_Smith
Nov 11, 2013, 11:13:25 PM11/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:44:13 -0700, deep wrote:
politicians that we are seeing coming to a complete collapse of
responsibility and ethics.
>>Sadly, yammering "impeach" over every crack in the sidewalk has become
>>a staple in the Republican repertory. One of many reasons that real
>>conservatives abandoned them long ago.
>
>Something about lying to Congress to start an illegal war of
>aggression which lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and
>hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be a bit in a different class of
>offenses than coping a blowjob from an intern.
I agree. Mostly. He can grope all he wants. They were both grown up
people. Lying to Congress is another story. Of course there is the
question whether it's any of the business of Congress. I don't see how
the President gets his jollies on his own time as a national issue.
Bush. Yeah, he most certainly should have been called to task. I said
that at the time too. Problem was all the Ds in Congress voted for the
"whatever you think, George" resolution and were on the hook. They
should have done their own research and dissented, but they rode the
fad of the day and got co-opted.
>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:14:41 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>Oh, and deep, Clinton intentionally lied to Congress over not having
>>sex with the WH bimbo dejure. He phrased it with a learned lawyers
>>language, but the message he gave was an out and out lie. He did get
>>impeached but not convicted.
>
>That was a pathetic, absurd witch hunt engineered by the right wing
>desperate to destroy a populist liberal President. It never should
>have happened in the first place.
Agreed. I said so at the time. An early sign of the disintegration of
>>Oh, and deep, Clinton intentionally lied to Congress over not having
>>sex with the WH bimbo dejure. He phrased it with a learned lawyers
>>language, but the message he gave was an out and out lie. He did get
>>impeached but not convicted.
>
>That was a pathetic, absurd witch hunt engineered by the right wing
>desperate to destroy a populist liberal President. It never should
>have happened in the first place.
politicians that we are seeing coming to a complete collapse of
responsibility and ethics.
>>Sadly, yammering "impeach" over every crack in the sidewalk has become
>>a staple in the Republican repertory. One of many reasons that real
>>conservatives abandoned them long ago.
>
>Something about lying to Congress to start an illegal war of
>aggression which lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and
>hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be a bit in a different class of
>offenses than coping a blowjob from an intern.
people. Lying to Congress is another story. Of course there is the
question whether it's any of the business of Congress. I don't see how
the President gets his jollies on his own time as a national issue.
Bush. Yeah, he most certainly should have been called to task. I said
that at the time too. Problem was all the Ds in Congress voted for the
"whatever you think, George" resolution and were on the hook. They
should have done their own research and dissented, but they rode the
fad of the day and got co-opted.
Winston_Smith
Nov 11, 2013, 11:18:40 PM11/11/13
to
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 03:24:17 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes wrote:
>deep wrote
>> Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered that he
>> intentionally lied to Congress?
>
>Um, because such proof was never presented. At least here in the real
>world.
Do you honestly believe there were massive amounts of WMDs? And
production facilities? Do you honesty believe they had a nuclear
program on the edge of building bombs? Do you believe they had rockets
and a bevy of aircraft ready to deliver them to the mainland US?
If we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here. Do you
honestly believe Iraqis are that good as trans-Atlantic swimmers?
Do you honestly think Bush didn't know he was putting out a crock?
>deep wrote
>> Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered that he
>> intentionally lied to Congress?
>
>Um, because such proof was never presented. At least here in the real
>world.
production facilities? Do you honesty believe they had a nuclear
program on the edge of building bombs? Do you believe they had rockets
and a bevy of aircraft ready to deliver them to the mainland US?
If we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here. Do you
honestly believe Iraqis are that good as trans-Atlantic swimmers?
Do you honestly think Bush didn't know he was putting out a crock?
Message has been deleted
rbowman
Nov 12, 2013, 12:38:25 AM11/12/13
to
wrote:
> That was a pathetic, absurd witch hunt engineered by the right wing
> desperate to destroy a populist liberal President. It never should
> have happened in the first place.
I'd think more of him if he'd just manned up. I'd don't have a problem with
presidents getting a chubby from chubby interns but all that 'meaning of is
is' shit was down right disgusting.
> That was a pathetic, absurd witch hunt engineered by the right wing
> desperate to destroy a populist liberal President. It never should
> have happened in the first place.
presidents getting a chubby from chubby interns but all that 'meaning of is
is' shit was down right disgusting.
Gunner Asch
Nov 12, 2013, 12:55:32 AM11/12/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 22:48:01 -0500, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:
>"deep" wrote in message news:i083891inghhu6k1c...@4ax.com...
>
>> Something about lying to Congress to start an illegal war of
>> aggression which lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and
>> hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be a bit in a different class of
>> offenses than coping a blowjob from an intern.
>
Seems that the honest leftwingers disagree with deep
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
>Not to mention torture as government policy.
Its standard procedure no matter who is president. You should have
been in the Highlands under LBJ. Torture was a fine art.
Gunner
--
Liberals want everyone to think like them.
Conservatives want everyone to think.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
wrote:
>"deep" wrote in message news:i083891inghhu6k1c...@4ax.com...
>
>> Something about lying to Congress to start an illegal war of
>> aggression which lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and
>> hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be a bit in a different class of
>> offenses than coping a blowjob from an intern.
>
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
>Not to mention torture as government policy.
been in the Highlands under LBJ. Torture was a fine art.
Gunner
--
Liberals want everyone to think like them.
Conservatives want everyone to think.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
deep
Nov 12, 2013, 8:38:50 AM11/12/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 22:38:25 -0700, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:
He was just circling the wagons.
wrote:
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 12, 2013, 8:58:47 AM11/12/13
to
If it wasn't such a big deal, like leftists never get tired of
claiming, why didn't he just admit it?
I mean, who'd want to stick their dick into this?
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/hillary-clinton-winking-550x367.jpg
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 12, 2013, 9:08:58 AM11/12/13
to
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:13:25 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>I agree. Mostly. He can grope all he wants. They were both grown up
>people. Lying to Congress is another story. Of course there is the
>question whether it's any of the business of Congress. I don't see how
>the President gets his jollies on his own time as a national issue.
Why didn't he just come out and say, "Yeah, I was fucking that skank
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>I agree. Mostly. He can grope all he wants. They were both grown up
>people. Lying to Congress is another story. Of course there is the
>question whether it's any of the business of Congress. I don't see how
>the President gets his jollies on his own time as a national issue.
on my own time" then?
The People would have understood, right?
Frank
Nov 12, 2013, 9:20:45 AM11/12/13
to
Bush's fault.
rbowman
Nov 12, 2013, 9:44:38 AM11/12/13
to
Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> Why didn't he just come out and say, "Yeah, I was fucking that skank
> on my own time" then?
>
> The People would have understood, right?
At least it was a female skank...
> Why didn't he just come out and say, "Yeah, I was fucking that skank
> on my own time" then?
>
> The People would have understood, right?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 12, 2013, 10:02:43 AM11/12/13
to
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:44:38 -0700, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:
Well, he learned his lesson after Hillary....
wrote:
Jim Wilkins
Nov 12, 2013, 10:38:08 AM11/12/13
to
"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:8oa38991t75ldq4bt...@4ax.com...
believed.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
We now know that Saddam had destroyed most of his WMDs in secret and
regretted it when he couldn't provide proof to inspectors later. He
pretended to still have them to intimidate Iran, and overestimated the
CIA's ability to see through his lies.
Instead we accepted the false testimony of Iraqi defectors, notably
this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
jsw
RD Sandman
Nov 12, 2013, 2:54:46 PM11/12/13
to
deep wrote in news:i083891inghhu6k1c...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:14:41 -0700, Winston_Smith
> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:54:56 -0700, deep wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>>>Unfortunately you are right. The Obama sycophants in the Senate will
>>>>never impeach anyone in his administration.
>>>
>>>Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered that he
>>>intentionally lied to Congress?
>>
>>Both cases depend on the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
>>There are actually things that rise to that level and more commonly,
>>there are political actions that some people don't like and want to
>>flap their gums over.
>>
>>
>>Oh, and deep, Clinton intentionally lied to Congress over not having
>>sex with the WH bimbo dejure. He phrased it with a learned lawyers
>>language, but the message he gave was an out and out lie. He did get
>>impeached but not convicted.
>
> That was a pathetic, absurd witch hunt engineered by the right wing
> desperate to destroy a populist liberal President. It never should
> have happened in the first place.
Neither the "duck and suck" or the impeachment.
>>Sadly, yammering "impeach" over every crack in the sidewalk has become
>>a staple in the Republican repertory. One of many reasons that real
>>conservatives abandoned them long ago.
>
> Something about lying to Congress to start an illegal war of
> aggression which lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and
> hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be a bit in a different class of
> offenses than coping a blowjob from an intern.
>
--
Sleep well tonight.......
RD (The Sandman}
One bullet in the possession of a criminal is too many.....
Ten bullets in the possession of a mother trying to protect
her children....may not be enough.
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:14:41 -0700, Winston_Smith
> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:54:56 -0700, deep wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>>>Unfortunately you are right. The Obama sycophants in the Senate will
>>>>never impeach anyone in his administration.
>>>
>>>Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered that he
>>>intentionally lied to Congress?
>>
>>Both cases depend on the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
>>There are actually things that rise to that level and more commonly,
>>there are political actions that some people don't like and want to
>>flap their gums over.
>>
>>
>>Oh, and deep, Clinton intentionally lied to Congress over not having
>>sex with the WH bimbo dejure. He phrased it with a learned lawyers
>>language, but the message he gave was an out and out lie. He did get
>>impeached but not convicted.
>
> That was a pathetic, absurd witch hunt engineered by the right wing
> desperate to destroy a populist liberal President. It never should
> have happened in the first place.
>>Sadly, yammering "impeach" over every crack in the sidewalk has become
>>a staple in the Republican repertory. One of many reasons that real
>>conservatives abandoned them long ago.
>
> Something about lying to Congress to start an illegal war of
> aggression which lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and
> hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be a bit in a different class of
> offenses than coping a blowjob from an intern.
>
Sleep well tonight.......
RD (The Sandman}
One bullet in the possession of a criminal is too many.....
Ten bullets in the possession of a mother trying to protect
her children....may not be enough.
RD Sandman
Nov 12, 2013, 2:53:35 PM11/12/13
to
perhaps it was because they didn't have proof without having to convict
half of them also. You know the folks like Kerry, the Clintons, etc who
also saw that same intelligence and, yet, signed the Resolution.
RD Sandman
Nov 12, 2013, 2:57:24 PM11/12/13
to
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in
news:i5a389to40bbqrlap...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:44:13 -0700, deep wrote:
>>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:14:41 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>Oh, and deep, Clinton intentionally lied to Congress over not having
>>>sex with the WH bimbo dejure. He phrased it with a learned lawyers
>>>language, but the message he gave was an out and out lie. He did get
>>>impeached but not convicted.
>>
>>That was a pathetic, absurd witch hunt engineered by the right wing
>>desperate to destroy a populist liberal President. It never should
>>have happened in the first place.
>
> Agreed. I said so at the time. An early sign of the disintegration of
> politicians that we are seeing coming to a complete collapse of
> responsibility and ethics.
>
>>>Sadly, yammering "impeach" over every crack in the sidewalk has become
>>>a staple in the Republican repertory. One of many reasons that real
>>>conservatives abandoned them long ago.
>>
>>Something about lying to Congress to start an illegal war of
>>aggression which lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and
>>hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be a bit in a different class of
>>offenses than coping a blowjob from an intern.
>
> I agree. Mostly. He can grope all he wants. They were both grown up
> people. Lying to Congress is another story. Of course there is the
> question whether it's any of the business of Congress. I don't see how
> the President gets his jollies on his own time as a national issue.
I don't have a problem with Clinton getting his knob polished. I just
wish it had been somewhere other than the Oval Office. I would also
venture that if Ol' Bill had come downstairs and found Chelsea face down
on the Larry the Cable Guy, a blowjob WOULD have been sex.
> Bush. Yeah, he most certainly should have been called to task. I said
> that at the time too. Problem was all the Ds in Congress voted for the
> "whatever you think, George" resolution and were on the hook. They
> should have done their own research and dissented, but they rode the
> fad of the day and got co-opted.
>
news:i5a389to40bbqrlap...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:44:13 -0700, deep wrote:
>>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:14:41 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>Oh, and deep, Clinton intentionally lied to Congress over not having
>>>sex with the WH bimbo dejure. He phrased it with a learned lawyers
>>>language, but the message he gave was an out and out lie. He did get
>>>impeached but not convicted.
>>
>>That was a pathetic, absurd witch hunt engineered by the right wing
>>desperate to destroy a populist liberal President. It never should
>>have happened in the first place.
>
> Agreed. I said so at the time. An early sign of the disintegration of
> politicians that we are seeing coming to a complete collapse of
> responsibility and ethics.
>
>>>Sadly, yammering "impeach" over every crack in the sidewalk has become
>>>a staple in the Republican repertory. One of many reasons that real
>>>conservatives abandoned them long ago.
>>
>>Something about lying to Congress to start an illegal war of
>>aggression which lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and
>>hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be a bit in a different class of
>>offenses than coping a blowjob from an intern.
>
> I agree. Mostly. He can grope all he wants. They were both grown up
> people. Lying to Congress is another story. Of course there is the
> question whether it's any of the business of Congress. I don't see how
> the President gets his jollies on his own time as a national issue.
wish it had been somewhere other than the Oval Office. I would also
venture that if Ol' Bill had come downstairs and found Chelsea face down
on the Larry the Cable Guy, a blowjob WOULD have been sex.
> Bush. Yeah, he most certainly should have been called to task. I said
> that at the time too. Problem was all the Ds in Congress voted for the
> "whatever you think, George" resolution and were on the hook. They
> should have done their own research and dissented, but they rode the
> fad of the day and got co-opted.
>
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 12, 2013, 3:42:49 PM11/12/13
to
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!
Using Larry the Cable Guy and "SEX" in the same sentence was very
insensitive to all the readers out here....
Report to the main office Monday Morning for Multicultural and
Sensitivity training.
And remember the dress code.
-
*This e-mail was scanned by the NSA*
And was found to be infected with language used by bullies and racists
which does not meet the Obama Standards of acceptable communications
within the Socialist States Of America... Please report to the
RE-EDUCATION CENTER CLOSEST TO YOUR ASSIGNED LIVING SPACE.
*Rumination*
#27 - Liberalism is a blackhole from which no intelligence escapes.
deep
Nov 12, 2013, 4:28:44 PM11/12/13
to
true. Nobody every suspected that The President would lie to Congress
to start a war.
RD Sandman
Nov 12, 2013, 4:46:31 PM11/12/13
to
deep wrote in news:ca7589lac5ffn2bb3...@4ax.com:
No, they weren't. See if you can figure out who the US Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence reports to and who was on that committee during
the 107th Congress.
Then look up who signed off on the Iraq Resolution which passed the House
the following votes:
Republican - 215 Aye 6 Nay 2 No Vote
Democrat - 82 Aye 126 Nay 1 No Vote
Independent - 1 Nay
Total - 297 Aye 133 Nay 3 No Vote
And the Senate:
Republican - 48 Aye 1 Nay
Democrat - 29 Aye 21 Nay
Independent - 1 Nay
Total - 77 Aye 23 Nay
The assumed it was
> true. Nobody every suspected that The President would lie to Congress
> to start a war.
And no one has proven that he did.
Committee on Intelligence reports to and who was on that committee during
the 107th Congress.
Then look up who signed off on the Iraq Resolution which passed the House
the following votes:
Republican - 215 Aye 6 Nay 2 No Vote
Democrat - 82 Aye 126 Nay 1 No Vote
Independent - 1 Nay
Total - 297 Aye 133 Nay 3 No Vote
And the Senate:
Republican - 48 Aye 1 Nay
Democrat - 29 Aye 21 Nay
Independent - 1 Nay
Total - 77 Aye 23 Nay
The assumed it was
> true. Nobody every suspected that The President would lie to Congress
> to start a war.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 12, 2013, 5:59:07 PM11/12/13
to
Why re-elect someone so stupid that dumb ass Bush could out smart them?
Maybe you need smarter candidates?
You're in a lose/lose scenario.... either the Dems were gullible and
stupid or they are trying to make political points (also stupid) off of
a war they signed up to create and all the misery and pain it caused.
Which is it?
--
*This e-mail was scanned by the NSA*
And was found to be infected with language used by the TEA PARTY,
bullies, racists and groups on Obama's specified enemies list - which
Winston_Smith
Nov 12, 2013, 6:39:02 PM11/12/13
to
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:59:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>On 11/12/2013 4:28 PM, deep wrote:
>Nobody every suspected that The President would lie to Congress
>> to start a war.
>
>So they were duped by a Texas cowboy?
More a slick Cheney leading a stacked cabinet.
>On 11/12/2013 4:28 PM, deep wrote:
>Nobody every suspected that The President would lie to Congress
>> to start a war.
>
>So they were duped by a Texas cowboy?
>Why re-elect someone so stupid that dumb ass Bush could out smart them?
>
>Maybe you need smarter candidates?
>
>You're in a lose/lose scenario.... either the Dems were gullible and
>stupid or they are trying to make political points (also stupid) off of
>a war they signed up to create and all the misery and pain it caused.
was certain what we were up against. Everyone wanted to present a
united bi-partisan front. That's not a bad thing in itself. It becomes
bad when the unscrupulous take advantage of patriotism. (That would be
your guys.)
If you are walking down the village street and pass a cop, do you
expect him to pull his gun and shoot you for the hell of it? There is
nothing wrong with trust. There IS something wrong with those that
exploit it. We had an unholy cartel, out to make massive amounts of
money. Of course, some soldiers had to die. That's the price of
getting filthy rich.
Bush = Carlyle
Cheney = Halliburton
Rumsfeld = Bechtel
Rice = Chevron
All interlocked and in that fine mess you also find Kissinger, noted
for engineering and older war for profit.
"Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in
foreign policy." -- Henry Kissinger
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 12, 2013, 6:50:40 PM11/12/13
to
On 11/12/2013 6:39 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:59:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 11/12/2013 4:28 PM, deep wrote:
>
>> Nobody every suspected that The President would lie to Congress
>>> to start a war.
>>
>> So they were duped by a Texas cowboy?
>
> More a slick Cheney leading a stacked cabinet.
>
>> Why re-elect someone so stupid that dumb ass Bush could out smart them?
>>
>> Maybe you need smarter candidates?
>>
>> You're in a lose/lose scenario.... either the Dems were gullible and
>> stupid or they are trying to make political points (also stupid) off of
>> a war they signed up to create and all the misery and pain it caused.
>
> It was just after 9-11. The nation pulled together for a time. No one
> was certain what we were up against.
SO they signed a declaration of war?
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:59:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 11/12/2013 4:28 PM, deep wrote:
>
>> Nobody every suspected that The President would lie to Congress
>>> to start a war.
>>
>> So they were duped by a Texas cowboy?
>
> More a slick Cheney leading a stacked cabinet.
>
>> Why re-elect someone so stupid that dumb ass Bush could out smart them?
>>
>> Maybe you need smarter candidates?
>>
>> You're in a lose/lose scenario.... either the Dems were gullible and
>> stupid or they are trying to make political points (also stupid) off of
>> a war they signed up to create and all the misery and pain it caused.
>
> It was just after 9-11. The nation pulled together for a time. No one
> was certain what we were up against.
This sounds even worse for Democrats than I had originally thought...
you know you have a right to remain silent and NOT incriminate yourself.
> Everyone wanted to present a
> united bi-partisan front.
kill kill so we all started yelling kill kill....
I had to toss out a little Alice's Restaurant.
> That's not a bad thing in itself. It becomes
> bad when the unscrupulous take advantage of patriotism. (That would be
> your guys.)
>
> If you are walking down the village street and pass a cop, do you
> expect him to pull his gun and shoot you for the hell of it? There is
> nothing wrong with trust.
lips that move when he reads it.
> There IS something wrong with those that
> exploit it. We had an unholy cartel, out to make massive amounts of
> money. Of course, some soldiers had to die. That's the price of
> getting filthy rich.
Winston_Smith
Nov 12, 2013, 6:57:48 PM11/12/13
to
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:50:40 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>On 11/12/2013 6:39 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:59:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2013 4:28 PM, deep wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody every suspected that The President would lie to Congress
>>>> to start a war.
>>>
>>> So they were duped by a Texas cowboy?
>>
>> More a slick Cheney leading a stacked cabinet.
>>
>>> Why re-elect someone so stupid that dumb ass Bush could out smart them?
>>>
>>> Maybe you need smarter candidates?
>>>
>>> You're in a lose/lose scenario.... either the Dems were gullible and
>>> stupid or they are trying to make political points (also stupid) off of
>>> a war they signed up to create and all the misery and pain it caused.
>>
>> It was just after 9-11. The nation pulled together for a time. No one
>> was certain what we were up against.
>
>SO they signed a declaration of war?
No, like every Congress since WW2, they passed the buck. Both parties
>On 11/12/2013 6:39 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:59:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2013 4:28 PM, deep wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody every suspected that The President would lie to Congress
>>>> to start a war.
>>>
>>> So they were duped by a Texas cowboy?
>>
>> More a slick Cheney leading a stacked cabinet.
>>
>>> Why re-elect someone so stupid that dumb ass Bush could out smart them?
>>>
>>> Maybe you need smarter candidates?
>>>
>>> You're in a lose/lose scenario.... either the Dems were gullible and
>>> stupid or they are trying to make political points (also stupid) off of
>>> a war they signed up to create and all the misery and pain it caused.
>>
>> It was just after 9-11. The nation pulled together for a time. No one
>> was certain what we were up against.
>
>SO they signed a declaration of war?
took turns in those 60 years passing the buck.
>This sounds even worse for Democrats than I had originally thought...
>you know you have a right to remain silent and NOT incriminate yourself.
criticized all concerned. YOU are the party loyalist.
>> Everyone wanted to present a united bi-partisan front.
>
>They want to kill kill kill and they started jumping up and down yelling
>kill kill so we all started yelling kill kill....
computer?
>I had to toss out a little Alice's Restaurant.
>> That's not a bad thing in itself. It becomes
>> bad when the unscrupulous take advantage of patriotism. (That would be
>> your guys.)
>
>Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel...
him.
>> If you are walking down the village street and pass a cop, do you
>> expect him to pull his gun and shoot you for the hell of it? There is
>> nothing wrong with trust.
>
>I've NEVER trusted one word uttered from Obama's teleprompter or his
>lips that move when he reads it.
>> There IS something wrong with those that
>> exploit it. We had an unholy cartel, out to make massive amounts of
>> money. Of course, some soldiers had to die. That's the price of
>> getting filthy rich.
>
>And sometimes it's a few CIA AGENTS and an AMBASSADOR that has to die....
it and bad when the other does. Party loyalists are like that.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 12, 2013, 7:20:36 PM11/12/13
to
Winston_Smith
Nov 12, 2013, 7:50:28 PM11/12/13
to
party.
Yes, Virginia, both parties have party loyalists. You seem to like the
R talking points.
I hold them in more or less equal contempt so you can stop trying to
get me into an R vs D debate.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 12, 2013, 7:53:28 PM11/12/13
to
"Leftards: batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of
you."
-Harold Burton
Guy Fawkes
Nov 12, 2013, 7:59:52 PM11/12/13
to
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in
news:8oa38991t75ldq4bt...@4ax.com:
In 2003 most everyone did.
--
Republicans really aren't human beings, so there is no harm, no foul.
Kirby Grant - Nov 3, 2013
Telling us his views of the world.
news:8oa38991t75ldq4bt...@4ax.com:
--
Republicans really aren't human beings, so there is no harm, no foul.
Kirby Grant - Nov 3, 2013
Telling us his views of the world.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 12, 2013, 8:13:19 PM11/12/13
to
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:14:41 -0700, Winston_Smith
><inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:54:56 -0700, deep wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>
>
>>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:54:56 -0700, deep wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>>>Unfortunately you are right. The Obama sycophants in the Senate will
>>>>never impeach anyone in his administration.
>>>
>>>>never impeach anyone in his administration.
>>>
>>>Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered that he
>>>intentionally lied to Congress?
>>
>>>intentionally lied to Congress?
>>
>>Both cases depend on the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
>>There are actually things that rise to that level and more commonly,
>>there are political actions that some people don't like and want to
>>flap their gums over.
>>
>>
>>There are actually things that rise to that level and more commonly,
>>there are political actions that some people don't like and want to
>>flap their gums over.
>>
>>
>>Oh, and deep, Clinton intentionally lied to Congress over not having
>>sex with the WH bimbo dejure. He phrased it with a learned lawyers
>>language, but the message he gave was an out and out lie. He did get
>>impeached but not convicted.
>
> That was a pathetic, absurd witch hunt engineered by the right wing
> desperate to destroy a populist liberal President. It never should
> have happened in the first place.
Yeah, because lieing is the only socialists can con anybody.
>>sex with the WH bimbo dejure. He phrased it with a learned lawyers
>>language, but the message he gave was an out and out lie. He did get
>>impeached but not convicted.
>
> That was a pathetic, absurd witch hunt engineered by the right wing
> desperate to destroy a populist liberal President. It never should
> have happened in the first place.
>
>>
>>Sadly, yammering "impeach" over every crack in the sidewalk has become
>>a staple in the Republican repertory. One of many reasons that real
>>conservatives abandoned them long ago.
>
> Something about lying to Congress to start an illegal war of
> aggression which lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and
> hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be a bit in a different class of
> offenses than coping a blowjob from an intern.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 12, 2013, 8:15:16 PM11/12/13
to
rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote in
news:bedt6l...@mid.individual.net:
Pretty much.
Um, "getting a chubby"? I have heard a hardon referred to as a chubby. And
I have gotten snarlings, hummers, headjobs et al, but never a chubby. Well
not in that context.
news:bedt6l...@mid.individual.net:
Um, "getting a chubby"? I have heard a hardon referred to as a chubby. And
I have gotten snarlings, hummers, headjobs et al, but never a chubby. Well
not in that context.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 12, 2013, 8:25:39 PM11/12/13
to
Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7ng489d1n0d13ih92...@4ax.com:
Um, According to Gennifer Flowers:
http://patdollard.com/2013/09/hillarys-eaten-more-psy-than-i-have-bill-
clinton-told-jennifer-flowers-hillary-was-bisexual/
When rumours surfaced recently of an affair between Hillary Clinton and her
transition office chief, Huma Abedin, 37, Gennifer was not surprised.
Gennifer said: ‘I don’t know Huma or the Weiners. I just know what Bill told
me and that was that he was aware that Hillary was bisexual and he didn’t
care. He should know.
‘He said Hillary had eaten more pussy than he had.’
Personally I don't care if she is bi. What I dislike is the subterfuge and
phoniness. According to the Alinskite left "the personal is political." I
just don't trust people who misrepresent themselves.
news:7ng489d1n0d13ih92...@4ax.com:
http://patdollard.com/2013/09/hillarys-eaten-more-psy-than-i-have-bill-
clinton-told-jennifer-flowers-hillary-was-bisexual/
When rumours surfaced recently of an affair between Hillary Clinton and her
transition office chief, Huma Abedin, 37, Gennifer was not surprised.
Gennifer said: ‘I don’t know Huma or the Weiners. I just know what Bill told
me and that was that he was aware that Hillary was bisexual and he didn’t
care. He should know.
‘He said Hillary had eaten more pussy than he had.’
Personally I don't care if she is bi. What I dislike is the subterfuge and
phoniness. According to the Alinskite left "the personal is political." I
just don't trust people who misrepresent themselves.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 12, 2013, 8:36:49 PM11/12/13
to
BeamMeUpScotty <Koom-...@space.cadet.NebulaX.com> wrote in
news:5282b2c8$0$25938$862e...@ngroups.net:
Truly. If Bush was a chimp but he outsmarted thier best and brightest, what
does that say about the libs?
news:5282b2c8$0$25938$862e...@ngroups.net:
does that say about the libs?
rbowman
Nov 12, 2013, 9:46:48 PM11/12/13
to
Guy Fawkes wrote:
> Um, "getting a chubby"? I have heard a hardon referred to as a chubby.
Presumably if she were performing fellatio on him off he managed to maintain
> Um, "getting a chubby"? I have heard a hardon referred to as a chubby.
an erection. The young lady in question wouldn't fit into my fanatasies
although I probably could have risen to the occasion. For B.J Clinton
anything with lips would do I guess.
rbowman
Nov 12, 2013, 9:50:40 PM11/12/13
to
wrote:
> They were provided the intel by The Executive. The assumed it was
> true. Nobody every suspected that The President would lie to Congress
> to start a war.
What kind of frigging idiots were they? Damn near every war president has
lied to Congress and the American people to start the war, particularly
Democrats.
> They were provided the intel by The Executive. The assumed it was
> true. Nobody every suspected that The President would lie to Congress
> to start a war.
lied to Congress and the American people to start the war, particularly
Democrats.
Johnny Johnson
Nov 13, 2013, 1:34:16 PM11/13/13
to
In article <s26389lvjhosmf7ms...@4ax.com>, deep shit (Tiefe
> <frank....@comcast.net> wrote:
Democrats said:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our
bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the
threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct.
9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the
United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat
to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the
United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of
delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter
and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build
up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to
use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that
a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and
grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the
progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ...
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
> <frank....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/2013 7:06 AM, lickin' Ass and Fakin' Names wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 03:01:42 -0700, "Ray Keller"
>>> <Left...@desperate.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawmakers Push to Impeach Disgraced Attorney General Holder
>>>> http://www.thenewamerican.com/ | November 9, 2013 | Alex Newman
>> On 11/11/2013 7:06 AM, lickin' Ass and Fakin' Names wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 03:01:42 -0700, "Ray Keller"
>>> <Left...@desperate.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawmakers Push to Impeach Disgraced Attorney General Holder
>>>>
>>>> Posted on Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:05:54 PM by Whenifhow
>>>>
>>>> After having already been held in criminal contempt of Congress
>>>
>>> Nothing but more rightwing babble and wet dreams.
>>>
>>> Impeachment requires a 2/3 vote of the House followed by a trial in
>>> the Senate. Neither of these will happen.
>>>
>>> This is nothing but a continuation of rightwing attacks on Obama.
>>> If you can't kill the President, kill the people around him . . . impeach
>>> Holder, call for Sebelius to resign . . . nothing but
>>> rightwingerdinger gamesmanship.
>>
>>Unfortunately you are right. The Obama sycophants in the Senate will
>>never impeach anyone in his administration.
>
> Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered that he
> intentionally lied to Congress?
>
Tell us, Deep Dipshit: how could have Bush have "lied to Congress" when these
>>>> Posted on Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:05:54 PM by Whenifhow
>>>>
>>>> After having already been held in criminal contempt of Congress
>>>
>>> Nothing but more rightwing babble and wet dreams.
>>>
>>> Impeachment requires a 2/3 vote of the House followed by a trial in
>>> the Senate. Neither of these will happen.
>>>
>>> This is nothing but a continuation of rightwing attacks on Obama.
>>> If you can't kill the President, kill the people around him . . . impeach
>>> Holder, call for Sebelius to resign . . . nothing but
>>> rightwingerdinger gamesmanship.
>>
>>Unfortunately you are right. The Obama sycophants in the Senate will
>>never impeach anyone in his administration.
>
> Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered that he
> intentionally lied to Congress?
>
Democrats said:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our
bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the
threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct.
9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the
United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat
to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the
United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of
delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter
and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build
up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to
use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that
a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and
grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the
progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ...
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
David Johnston
Nov 13, 2013, 1:53:28 PM11/13/13
to
then that means it always had a WMD program?
pyotr filipivich
Nov 13, 2013, 2:31:53 PM11/13/13
to
Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> on Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:34:16
-0600 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
it saw on a DNC web site or cable channel [the two are
interchangeable]! The head of the DNC says "Black is white" and
Chris Matthews and company dutifully quack "Blackwhite! Blackwhite!
Anyone who says otherwise is a racists hater! Blackwhite!" And Deep
(and millions like her) bark like the trained seals they are "Aarp,
Aarp! Blackwhite! Aarp - aarp!"
Heck, they're so conditioned, they hardly need any prompting.
OTOH, it could be that Deep was a test subject for the Orbital
Mind Control Lasers, and the prototypes ... well, lets just say that
there was some problem with excessive high energy photonic induced
magnoreluctance and capacitive directance over time, resulting in a
permanent magnetic hysteresis being established in non-anodized
Aluminum barriers of 6 micron dimension, with attendant sinusoidal
depleneration of the Alpha and Gamma(3) wave functions.
In other words, Deep's tin foil beanies have only made the
problems worse.
--
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
-0600 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>In article <s26389lvjhosmf7ms...@4ax.com>, deep shit (Tiefe
>Scheiße) <du...@propagandists.dnc.org> wrote:
>Scheiße) <du...@propagandists.dnc.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:02:27 -0500, Frank wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2013 7:06 AM, lickin' Ass and Fakin' Names wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2013 7:06 AM, lickin' Ass and Fakin' Names wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 03:01:42 -0700, "Ray Keller" wrote:
>>>>> Lawmakers Push to Impeach Disgraced Attorney General Holder
>>>>> http://www.thenewamerican.com/ | November 9, 2013 | Alex Newman
>>>>> Posted on Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:05:54 PM by Whenifhow
>>>>>
>>>>> After having already been held in criminal contempt of Congress
>>>>
>>>> Nothing but more rightwing babble and wet dreams.
>>>>
>>>> Impeachment requires a 2/3 vote of the House followed by a trial in
>>>> the Senate. Neither of these will happen.
>>>>
>>>> This is nothing but a continuation of rightwing attacks on Obama.
>>>> If you can't kill the President, kill the people around him . . . impeach
>>>> Holder, call for Sebelius to resign . . . nothing but
>>>> rightwingerdinger gamesmanship.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately you are right. The Obama sycophants in the Senate will
>>>never impeach anyone in his administration.
>>
>> Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered that he
>> intentionally lied to Congress?
>>
>Tell us, Deep Dipshit: how could have Bush have "lied to Congress" when these
>Democrats said:
Deep Dudu doesn't know from facts - all the proof it needs is what
>>>>> Lawmakers Push to Impeach Disgraced Attorney General Holder
>>>>> http://www.thenewamerican.com/ | November 9, 2013 | Alex Newman
>>>>> Posted on Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:05:54 PM by Whenifhow
>>>>>
>>>>> After having already been held in criminal contempt of Congress
>>>>
>>>> Nothing but more rightwing babble and wet dreams.
>>>>
>>>> Impeachment requires a 2/3 vote of the House followed by a trial in
>>>> the Senate. Neither of these will happen.
>>>>
>>>> This is nothing but a continuation of rightwing attacks on Obama.
>>>> If you can't kill the President, kill the people around him . . . impeach
>>>> Holder, call for Sebelius to resign . . . nothing but
>>>> rightwingerdinger gamesmanship.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately you are right. The Obama sycophants in the Senate will
>>>never impeach anyone in his administration.
>>
>> Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered that he
>> intentionally lied to Congress?
>>
>Tell us, Deep Dipshit: how could have Bush have "lied to Congress" when these
>Democrats said:
it saw on a DNC web site or cable channel [the two are
interchangeable]! The head of the DNC says "Black is white" and
Chris Matthews and company dutifully quack "Blackwhite! Blackwhite!
Anyone who says otherwise is a racists hater! Blackwhite!" And Deep
(and millions like her) bark like the trained seals they are "Aarp,
Aarp! Blackwhite! Aarp - aarp!"
Heck, they're so conditioned, they hardly need any prompting.
OTOH, it could be that Deep was a test subject for the Orbital
Mind Control Lasers, and the prototypes ... well, lets just say that
there was some problem with excessive high energy photonic induced
magnoreluctance and capacitive directance over time, resulting in a
permanent magnetic hysteresis being established in non-anodized
Aluminum barriers of 6 micron dimension, with attendant sinusoidal
depleneration of the Alpha and Gamma(3) wave functions.
In other words, Deep's tin foil beanies have only made the
problems worse.
--
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Jim Wilkins
Nov 13, 2013, 3:47:00 PM11/13/13
to
"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ogj789lqabeu38a55...@4ax.com...
The beanie needs to be embossed with a conjugate mirror pattern sized
to the wavelength.
I TOLD them my ELF-modulated circularly polarized millimeter-wave
transmitter would work better, but no one ever listens to me. It
inhibits all brain activity except the hippocampal Theta rhythm
characteristic of REM sleep in rodents, making the subject execute
their implanted engrams as unquestioningly as a zombie without the
side effects (see 2011 proposal). Unfortunately a few abnormally
sonambulent subjects can regain a degree of pseudo-consciousness while
most of their brain remains fully asleep. They attempt to reshape
their surroundings to match their dream world and if frustrated in
this, behave like hungry rats.
-563829
news:ogj789lqabeu38a55...@4ax.com...
> OTOH, it could be that Deep was a test subject for the Orbital
> Mind Control Lasers, and the prototypes ... well, lets just say that
> there was some problem with excessive high energy photonic induced
> magnoreluctance and capacitive directance over time, resulting in a
> permanent magnetic hysteresis being established in non-anodized
> Aluminum barriers of 6 micron dimension, with attendant sinusoidal
> depleneration of the Alpha and Gamma(3) wave functions.
>
> In other words, Deep's tin foil beanies have only made the
> problems worse.
>
> pyotr filipivich.
> Mind Control Lasers, and the prototypes ... well, lets just say that
> there was some problem with excessive high energy photonic induced
> magnoreluctance and capacitive directance over time, resulting in a
> permanent magnetic hysteresis being established in non-anodized
> Aluminum barriers of 6 micron dimension, with attendant sinusoidal
> depleneration of the Alpha and Gamma(3) wave functions.
>
> In other words, Deep's tin foil beanies have only made the
> problems worse.
>
The beanie needs to be embossed with a conjugate mirror pattern sized
to the wavelength.
I TOLD them my ELF-modulated circularly polarized millimeter-wave
transmitter would work better, but no one ever listens to me. It
inhibits all brain activity except the hippocampal Theta rhythm
characteristic of REM sleep in rodents, making the subject execute
their implanted engrams as unquestioningly as a zombie without the
side effects (see 2011 proposal). Unfortunately a few abnormally
sonambulent subjects can regain a degree of pseudo-consciousness while
most of their brain remains fully asleep. They attempt to reshape
their surroundings to match their dream world and if frustrated in
this, behave like hungry rats.
-563829
pyotr filipivich
Nov 13, 2013, 7:02:18 PM11/13/13
to
"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> on Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:47:00
-0500 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
Well, of course. Goes without saying.
Just like Dudu.
-0500 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
Just like Dudu.
Scout
Nov 13, 2013, 8:46:04 PM11/13/13
to
news:r74889ltbvtfhce2q...@4ax.com...
Sorry, but Dudu hasn't gone and is still saying......
Guy Fawkes
Nov 13, 2013, 8:55:25 PM11/13/13
to
rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote in news:beg7ntFuevpU2
@mid.individual.net:
I have to apologize for having been crude with you earlier, I thought you
were someone else. Name is similar.
@mid.individual.net:
were someone else. Name is similar.
Johnny Johnson
Nov 13, 2013, 9:06:58 PM11/13/13
to
In article <8oa38991t75ldq4bt...@4ax.com>, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net>...
>
Guess you never gave any consideration to the subliminal message your chose
of "invalid" as a phony e-mail address is; did you, Winston?
inï¿œvalï¿œid / adjective
a : being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law <an invalid
assumption> <declared the will invalid>
b : logically inconsequent
1: suffering from disease or disability : sickly
2: of, relating to, or suited to one that is sick <an invalid chair>
invalid / noun
\same as 2\
: a person who needs to be cared for because of injury or illness
: one who is sickly or disabled
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invalid
>
> ...says...
A drop the size of Lincoln's eye on the penny will kill you immediately:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkbBnvz0rw0
>
> And production facilities?
>
VX can be whipped up in a kitchen.
While Sodamn Insane certainly wanted nuclear capabilities, he had, and used,
VX.
hijacking ocean-going ships and aircraft.
Or haven't you been keeping up with world events?
thing, WS?
Is your BDS that bad?
<inv...@butterfly.net>...
>
Guess you never gave any consideration to the subliminal message your chose
of "invalid" as a phony e-mail address is; did you, Winston?
inï¿œvalï¿œid / adjective
a : being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law <an invalid
assumption> <declared the will invalid>
b : logically inconsequent
1: suffering from disease or disability : sickly
2: of, relating to, or suited to one that is sick <an invalid chair>
invalid / noun
\same as 2\
: a person who needs to be cared for because of injury or illness
: one who is sickly or disabled
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invalid
>
> ...says...
>
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 03:24:17 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes wrote:
>
>> deep shit wrote
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 03:24:17 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes wrote:
>
>
>>> Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered
>>> that he intentionally lied to Congress?
>>
>>> Why did they never impeach Bush, even when proof was offered
>>> that he intentionally lied to Congress?
>>
>> Um, because such proof was never presented.
>> At least here in the real world.
>
> Do you honestly believe there were massive amounts of WMDs?
>
How "massive" does an amount of VX have to be, WS?
>> At least here in the real world.
>
> Do you honestly believe there were massive amounts of WMDs?
>
A drop the size of Lincoln's eye on the penny will kill you immediately:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkbBnvz0rw0
>
> And production facilities?
>
VX can be whipped up in a kitchen.
>
> Do you honesty believe they had a nuclear program on the edge
> of building bombs?
>
Red Herring, WS: nuclear is merely a single form of "WMD."
> Do you honesty believe they had a nuclear program on the edge
> of building bombs?
>
While Sodamn Insane certainly wanted nuclear capabilities, he had, and used,
VX.
>
> Do you believe they had rockets and a bevy of aircraft ready to
> deliver them to the mainland US?
>
You really love Red Herrings; don't you?
> Do you believe they had rockets and a bevy of aircraft ready to
> deliver them to the mainland US?
>
>
> If we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here.
> Do you honestly believe Iraqis are that good as trans-Atlantic swimmers?
>
Gee, WS: seems as though all those Muslim extremists are pretty good at
> If we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here.
> Do you honestly believe Iraqis are that good as trans-Atlantic swimmers?
>
hijacking ocean-going ships and aircraft.
Or haven't you been keeping up with world events?
>
> Do you honestly think Bush didn't know he was putting out a crock?
>
Why do you continue to ignore all those Democrat leaders that said the same
> Do you honestly think Bush didn't know he was putting out a crock?
>
thing, WS?
Is your BDS that bad?
Winston_Smith
Nov 13, 2013, 9:13:00 PM11/13/13
to
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 06:08:58 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
public life and also pursue the evening activities of an alley cat.
His call.
I hope you are not saying it's OK for a politician to lie because
otherwise he might get the public mad at him, are you?
>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:13:25 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>I agree. Mostly. He can grope all he wants. They were both grown up
>>people. Lying to Congress is another story. Of course there is the
>>question whether it's any of the business of Congress. I don't see how
>>the President gets his jollies on his own time as a national issue.
>
>
>>I agree. Mostly. He can grope all he wants. They were both grown up
>>people. Lying to Congress is another story. Of course there is the
>>question whether it's any of the business of Congress. I don't see how
>>the President gets his jollies on his own time as a national issue.
>
>Why didn't he just come out and say, "Yeah, I was fucking that skank
>on my own time" then?
>
>The People would have understood, right?
Those are the decisions a person must make when they choose to lead a
>on my own time" then?
>
>The People would have understood, right?
public life and also pursue the evening activities of an alley cat.
His call.
I hope you are not saying it's OK for a politician to lie because
otherwise he might get the public mad at him, are you?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 13, 2013, 9:21:21 PM11/13/13
to
politicians from public life and replace them with statesmen.
Since Democrats claim that it was such a "little, inconsequential
thing" I am surprised Clinton- the leader of their party at the time--
didn't agree with them, and explain in gruesome detail how he managed
to stain Monica's dress.
After all, it was just a blowjob.
So what was all the bullshit about "is?"
Johnny Johnson
Nov 13, 2013, 9:27:44 PM11/13/13
to
Guess you never gave any consideration to the subliminal message your choice
Winston_Smith
Nov 13, 2013, 9:31:14 PM11/13/13
to
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:06:58 -0600, Johnny Johnson wrote:
>Winston_Smith
>Guess you never gave any consideration to the subliminal message your chose
>of "invalid" as a phony e-mail address is; did you, Winston?
That is the recommend way to indicate a bogus address. It's consistent
and it's honest.
>How "massive" does an amount of VX have to be, WS?
>
>A drop the size of Lincoln's eye on the penny will kill you immediately:
And the delivery system to get it to "masses" of victims ??
>VX can be whipped up in a kitchen.
Any proof Saddam was doing that? And, again, the delivery.
>> Do you honesty believe they had a nuclear program on the edge
>> of building bombs?
>>
>Red Herring, WS: nuclear is merely a single form of "WMD."
Not a red herring. Bush ran multiple versions of the theme. Gas was
one, nuclear was another. Several flavors of each.
>While Sodamn Insane certainly wanted nuclear capabilities, he had, and used,
>VX.
Was that the stuff we gave him to use on the Iranians? If so, 'used'
is the operative word. If any was left, it was most likely inert from
age. IIRC they did find "traces" that required sophisticated chemical
methods for detection.
>> Do you believe they had rockets and a bevy of aircraft ready to
>> deliver them to the mainland US?
>>
>You really love Red Herrings; don't you?
That's one of Bush's too.
>> If we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here.
>> Do you honestly believe Iraqis are that good as trans-Atlantic swimmers?
>>
>Gee, WS: seems as though all those Muslim extremists are pretty good at
>hijacking ocean-going ships and aircraft.
To the extent of being an invasion force? Who's making the red
herrings here?
>Or haven't you been keeping up with world events?
>>
>> Do you honestly think Bush didn't know he was putting out a crock?
>>
>Why do you continue to ignore all those Democrat leaders that said the same
>thing, WS?
I haven't. I've given them some licks in this very thread.
|-- >Message-ID: <i5a389to40bbqrlap...@4ax.com>
|-- >Problem was all the Ds in Congress voted for the
|-- >"whatever you think, George" resolution and were on the hook. They
|-- >should have done their own research and dissented, but they rode the
|-- >fad of the day and got co-opted.
>Is your BDS that bad?
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
Palestinian BDS National Committee
Burning Dong Sensation
Brooklyn Defender Services
Boeing: Defense, Space & Security
BDS Tactical Gear
>Winston_Smith
>Guess you never gave any consideration to the subliminal message your chose
>of "invalid" as a phony e-mail address is; did you, Winston?
and it's honest.
>How "massive" does an amount of VX have to be, WS?
>
>A drop the size of Lincoln's eye on the penny will kill you immediately:
>VX can be whipped up in a kitchen.
>> Do you honesty believe they had a nuclear program on the edge
>> of building bombs?
>>
>Red Herring, WS: nuclear is merely a single form of "WMD."
one, nuclear was another. Several flavors of each.
>While Sodamn Insane certainly wanted nuclear capabilities, he had, and used,
>VX.
is the operative word. If any was left, it was most likely inert from
age. IIRC they did find "traces" that required sophisticated chemical
methods for detection.
>> Do you believe they had rockets and a bevy of aircraft ready to
>> deliver them to the mainland US?
>>
>You really love Red Herrings; don't you?
>> If we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here.
>> Do you honestly believe Iraqis are that good as trans-Atlantic swimmers?
>>
>Gee, WS: seems as though all those Muslim extremists are pretty good at
>hijacking ocean-going ships and aircraft.
herrings here?
>Or haven't you been keeping up with world events?
>>
>> Do you honestly think Bush didn't know he was putting out a crock?
>>
>Why do you continue to ignore all those Democrat leaders that said the same
>thing, WS?
|-- >Message-ID: <i5a389to40bbqrlap...@4ax.com>
|-- >Problem was all the Ds in Congress voted for the
|-- >"whatever you think, George" resolution and were on the hook. They
|-- >should have done their own research and dissented, but they rode the
|-- >fad of the day and got co-opted.
>Is your BDS that bad?
Palestinian BDS National Committee
Burning Dong Sensation
Brooklyn Defender Services
Boeing: Defense, Space & Security
BDS Tactical Gear
pyotr filipivich
Nov 14, 2013, 11:00:25 AM11/14/13
to
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on Wed, 13 Nov
2013 20:46:04 -0500 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
Yes. It just keeps going, and going, and going without saying
anything new, useful, entertaining, true or valuable.
2013 20:46:04 -0500 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
anything new, useful, entertaining, true or valuable.
0 new messages