"You stupid fuckers LOST!!! Bwahaahaahaahaahaa!!!!!!"
Anthony Stephen Szopa
Keep solely looking at the Impeachment trial, and telling yourself
and others that the Republicans lost and that the democrats won.
Don't dare look in the mirror and try to explain to the person you see
in there exactly what you won... and what you have lost.
"What is there to celebrate?" - Joe Lockhart, White House Press
Secretary, 1999.
I see clinton has divided this country more than any president since
Jefferson Davis: 45 - 55 & 50 - 50.
Does anyone really think this is going to change with just one more
lying speech from clinton?
Live with it. And above all, remember the democratic imperative: lie
like hell!
Of course, democrats hardly need reminding of this. It comes as
naturally as the knee jerk when the doctor taps your kneecap with that
silly little rubber hammer.
Everyone sees right here in these newsgroups: the democrats simply
cannot stop lying.
This is what democrats will expend most of their energy doing for the
foreseeable future at the detriment of the Nation. But this is their
intention: to continue to harm the nation.
Schizodemocrat: a new psychiatric mental disorder characterized by
delusions of political grandeur, a severe impairment of moral judgment,
the complete loss of the capacity for remorse, and the pathological
proclivity to lie like hell.
rose...@idt.net
>"You stupid fuckers LOST!!! Bwahaahaahaahaahaa!!!!!!"
A few more losses like that you poor fool and you'll have to find a
different political party.
BTW, I think there's something wrong with either your keyboard or
brain.
It keeps repeating nonsense.
Thom Borland
Henry Hyde -- admitted adulterous, lying hypocrite.
Bob Barr -- committed perjury after driving his wife to the abortion
clinic where he had campaigned, calling abortion murder.
Bob Livingston -- admitted to numerous affairs and lying about all
of them.
Dan Burton -- admitted lying adulterer - called the President a
"scumbag" for his affair.
Helen Chenoweth -- another outed adulterer -- campaigned under the
slogan "family values" while she was banging a married man.
Ken Starr -- under investigation for illegally trying to take down
the President without jurisdiction and colluding with the Jones team.
It's almost like once the digging started full-scale on both sides,
the mountain of shit piling up around the Republicans was the size of
Mount Everest. They practically monopolize lying, cheating and
hypocrisy. Sorry :-(
--
Conservatism: The haunting fear that somewhere,
someone is having a good time.
Aircontrol
CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH AND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.......EVEN THE DEMOS
ADMITTED HE DID THIS BUT YET VOTED TO ACQUIT.......WHAT STUPIDITY!!!
the auctioneer
Aircontrol <"he's still guilty "@f.lying.to.America>
No.....stupidity was even letting it go as far as it did. My, what an
expensive witch hunt this was, fellas.....Get a grip....and go have a good
cry. It's over. NOT GUILTY.
gdy52150
"@f.lying.to.America> wrote:
>Thom Borland wrote:
>>
>> Henry Hyde -- admitted adulterous, lying hypocrite.
>> Bob Barr -- committed perjury after driving his wife to the abortion
>> clinic where he had campaigned, calling abortion murder.
>> Bob Livingston -- admitted to numerous affairs and lying about all
>> of them.
>> Dan Burton -- admitted lying adulterer - called the President a
>> "scumbag" for his affair.
>> Helen Chenoweth -- another outed adulterer -- campaigned under the
>> slogan "family values" while she was banging a married man.
>> Ken Starr -- under investigation for illegally trying to take down
>> the President without jurisdiction and colluding with the Jones team.
>>
>> It's almost like once the digging started full-scale on both sides,
>> the mountain of shit piling up around the Republicans was the size of
>> Mount Everest. They practically monopolize lying, cheating and
>> hypocrisy. Sorry :-(
>> --
>> Conservatism: The haunting fear that somewhere,
>> someone is having a good time.
>
>CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH AND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.......EVEN THE DEMOS
>ADMITTED HE DID THIS BUT YET VOTED TO ACQUIT.......WHAT STUPIDITY!!!
in another thrread airhead said we was contented with the outcome.
What a hypocrite, looks liek he's shitting his pants full.
====================================================
For those seeking Enlightenment
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
home of "The Mr. Sam Memorial Blithering Idiot Of
The Month Award"
Do your patriotic duty an reward your favorite
cackling loon by voting today
at http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/award.html
GDY Weasel
======================================================
Granny'sGhost
Jim Kutz
>> "You stupid fuckers LOST!!! Bwahaahaahaahaahaa!!!!!!"
> A few more losses like that ... and you'll have to find a
> different political party.
The one they've got is a perfect roach hotel :)
The more it smells, the better they like it. I think
we're on to somethin' here :)
-- Jim Kutz
--
Let no politician, no party, influence your vote. If any do not willingly
represent you, vote them out. Let no party tell you what the issues are. Tell
each other what YOUR issues are. Don't fight partisanship. Marvel at it . Link
up with its many opponents. Expedite dissent until partisanship cannot rule.
GHouck
>
> "You stupid fuckers LOST!!! Bwahaahaahaahaahaa!!!!!!"
>
Don't you (Conservative, that is) guys worry about your
man here? He is turning into a caricature of Dr Bronner's
packaging.
Relax, A.S.S., we are going to make it.
ghouck
GHouck
>
> Let's remember... he wasn't found innocent. It was, in effect, a hung jury.
Granny,
The ol' American way: Guilty until proven Innocent! Nope,
it was up to the House Managers to prove guilt, not for
Clinton to prove innocence.
You must be dreaming of that special world that you
Conservatives have planned for the rest of us.
Got your history screwed on a little backwards,
Granny.
ghouck
BP
impeachment in the house way back when?
This sounds like more of a liberal idiot to me, especially by the
language. Go back and post more of the thread so we can make more sense
of your hype.
*******
The senate must know how many people are against this acquittal of Bill
Clinton. Write a letter to your Senator and send a copy to:
Acquittal Hell No! (or use heck if you don't like hell)
PO Box 834
Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
I will collect and calculate all the mail including the number of
letters as well as a tally of the numbers in each state in support of
his resignation. Too bad we can't APPEAL this decision! Or maybe we
can... any constitutional lawyers out there that can answer the
question?
Please send your letter and forward this email on! I'm going to post at
our local grocery store and other places as well. Print a few copies and
put them on cars, billboards, community boards, etc!
Michael J. Kiraly
>
> I'm through talking.
Dementia Szopa: A mental disorder characterized by delusions of
clairvoyance, frequently manifest in ridiculously off-base
predictions of United States Senate vote tallies. (After
Tony (The Chowderhead) Szopa, who in January 1999 predicted that
that political body would convict and remove President Clinton
from office by a vote of 87-13.)
Keep grumbling, Tony. You're famous.
Philip Kirschner
BP wrote:
Hello? Was this posted about the acquittal yesterday or about the
impeachment in the house way back when?
What the heck are you talking about?
This sounds like more of a liberal idiot to me, especially by the
language. Go back and post more of the thread so we can make more sense
of your hype.
Sounds like conservative scapegoating to me!
HTTP://www.disabledforgore.org
Philip Kirschner
Phil
http://www.disabledforgore.org
Robert McCallum
"@f.lying.to.America> wrote:
>CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH AND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.......EVEN THE DEMOS
>ADMITTED HE DID THIS BUT YET VOTED TO ACQUIT.......WHAT STUPIDITY!!!
Correcton: Democrats and 10 Republicans. It was bipartisan acquital.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<ant...@ciphile.com> wrote:
>"You stupid fuckers LOST!!! Bwahaahaahaahaahaa!!!!!!"
>
>Keep solely looking at the Impeachment trial, and telling yourself
>and others that the Republicans lost and that the democrats won.
>
>Don't dare look in the mirror and try to explain to the person you see
>in there exactly what you won... and what you have lost.
>
>"What is there to celebrate?" - Joe Lockhart, White House Press
>Secretary, 1999.
>
>I see clinton has divided this country more than any president since
>Jefferson Davis: 45 - 55 & 50 - 50.
The electorate produced this divide, actually.
About as many Republicans as Democrats.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Thom Borland
(gdy52150) wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:56:13 -0500, Aircontrol <"he's still guilty
>"@f.lying.to.America> wrote:
>
>>Thom Borland wrote:
>>>
>>> Henry Hyde -- admitted adulterous, lying hypocrite.
>>> Bob Barr -- committed perjury after driving his wife to the abortion
>>> clinic where he had campaigned, calling abortion murder.
>>> Bob Livingston -- admitted to numerous affairs and lying about all
>>> of them.
>>> Dan Burton -- admitted lying adulterer - called the President a
>>> "scumbag" for his affair.
>>> Helen Chenoweth -- another outed adulterer -- campaigned under the
>>> slogan "family values" while she was banging a married man.
>>> Ken Starr -- under investigation for illegally trying to take down
>>> the President without jurisdiction and colluding with the Jones team.
>>>
>>> It's almost like once the digging started full-scale on both sides,
>>> the mountain of shit piling up around the Republicans was the size of
>>> Mount Everest. They practically monopolize lying, cheating and
>>> hypocrisy. Sorry :-(
>>> --
>>> Conservatism: The haunting fear that somewhere,
>>> someone is having a good time.
>>
>>CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH AND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.......EVEN THE DEMOS
>>ADMITTED HE DID THIS BUT YET VOTED TO ACQUIT.......WHAT STUPIDITY!!!
>
>in another thrread airhead said we was contented with the outcome.
>What a hypocrite, looks liek he's shitting his pants full.
>
Hahaha... Looks like our wingnut friends could use a heapin' helpin'
of prozac right now.
Linus F. Zimmerman
Robert McCallum wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:56:13 -0500, Aircontrol <"he's still guilty
> "@f.lying.to.America> wrote:
>
> >CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH AND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.......EVEN THE DEMOS
> >ADMITTED HE DID THIS BUT YET VOTED TO ACQUIT.......WHAT STUPIDITY!!!
>
> Correcton: Democrats and 10 Republicans. It was bipartisan acquital.
Only a 100% brain-dead person could convince themselves of that.
The Democrats were always expected to vote acquittal since they
invariably put party before country.
The Republicans who voted with them all have a common problem.
Large numbers of Liberals in their states whom they feared.
It was a fixed jury by any standard. Had absolutely nothing to
do with guilty or innocent. Strictly political motives and it
could have been murder and turned out the same way.
So please don't bullshit us. We've been exposed to it too many
times and are now immune to it's effects.
LZ
Papa Budge
<ant...@ciphile.com> wrote:
> "You stupid fuckers LOST!!! Bwahaahaahaahaahaa!!!!!!"
Yes, maybe we can lose a few more like this, and all you really smart
and decent people will go away altogether.
--papa budge
"Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything:
That's how the light gets in."
--lc
"I am a liar who always tells the truth."
--jc
the auctioneer
Linus F. Zimmerman wrote in message
<36C59F32...@tabletoptelephone.com>...
>
>
>Robert McCallum wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:56:13 -0500, Aircontrol <"he's still guilty
>> "@f.lying.to.America> wrote:
>>
>> >CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH AND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.......EVEN THE DEMOS
>> >ADMITTED HE DID THIS BUT YET VOTED TO ACQUIT.......WHAT STUPIDITY!!!
>>
>> Correcton: Democrats and 10 Republicans. It was bipartisan acquital.
>
>
>Only a 100% brain-dead person could convince themselves of that.
>
Hmmm....that's an awful lot of brain dead people. Millions, in fact.
>The Democrats were always expected to vote acquittal since they
>invariably put party before country.
>
I look it as seeing they invariably put the American people's interest
before a witch hunt gone bad.
>The Republicans who voted with them all have a common problem.
>Large numbers of Liberals in their states whom they feared.
>
So you are saying that the majority of people in certain states do in fact
think that he should not be removed from office, and that because those very
same people vote issues THEY believe in, they needed to save their political
hate and vote the issues the people wanted? Sounds about right. Finally,
we agree on something.
>It was a fixed jury by any standard. Had absolutely nothing to
>do with guilty or innocent. Strictly political motives and it
>could have been murder and turned out the same way.
>
Is this going to be the new Republican Agenda? Fixed Jury: Was It or Not?
>So please don't bullshit us. We've been exposed to it too many
>times and are now immune to it's effects.
>LZ
And finally, the party that has tried to hang this administration with so
much bullshit has FINALLY been laid to rest. And you are right. They have
been exposed. And rightly so.
gdy52150
<esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
>
>Robert McCallum wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:56:13 -0500, Aircontrol <"he's still guilty
>> "@f.lying.to.America> wrote:
>>
>> >CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH AND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.......EVEN THE DEMOS
>> >ADMITTED HE DID THIS BUT YET VOTED TO ACQUIT.......WHAT STUPIDITY!!!
>>
>> Correcton: Democrats and 10 Republicans. It was bipartisan acquital.
>
>
>Only a 100% brain-dead person could convince themselves of that.
>
>The Democrats were always expected to vote acquittal since they
>invariably put party before country.
actually you got that ass backwards fool. Or haven't you heard what
congressman king has been saying about delay and being forced to vote
for the articles on impeachment in the house.
Patrick Barker
>The ol' American way: Guilty until proven Innocent! Nope,
>it was up to the House Managers to prove guilt, not for
>Clinton to prove innocence.
Yes, you are right. However, when 45 senators decided at the "get-go" that
they wanted dismissal without listening to or observing the evidence, then
if you just look at the 55 senators who decided to pay attention to that
evidence -- look at these results: 45 of 55 voted to convict on one article
and 50 of 55 voted to convict on the other. If the democRATs had just
listened to the evidence, if they had paid attention, followed the
constituion, voted according to their morals and conscienses, I believe we
would have a new president: AL Gore - today.
RH
Patrick Barker wrote in message <7a4dh3$c0g$1...@news.erinet.com>...
>GHouck wrote
>>The ol' American way: Guilty until proven Innocent! Nope,
>>it was up to the House Managers to prove guilt, not for
>>Clinton to prove innocence.
>
>Yes, you are right. However, when 45 senators decided at the "get-go" that
>they wanted dismissal without listening to or observing the evidence,
It's amazing how quick the right wing is to dismiss "the rule of law" when
they can't manipulate it to their own ends. By the logic above the entire
impeachment was bogus because a political majority in the House Judiciary
Committee decided from the "get-go" that it was going to impeach the
President without benefit of an investigation, witnesses or a just review of
the facts.
Try to get this through your heads. The Chief Justice used an important old
word: "Acquitted." In America this means the accused is considered
innocent of the charges. It's a typical bit of hypocrisy that the political
witchhunters that began this whole sick little vendetta are now sniveling
about how the president is going to declare war on his tormentors while they
refuse to accept the verdict of the United States Senate.
RH
Christopher Morton
Borland) wrote:
>
> Henry Hyde -- admitted adulterous, lying hypocrite.
How's it going, Bard?
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Check out:
http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
http://www.firstnethou.com/gunsite/moore.html
edh...@best.com
> I see clinton has divided this country more than any president since
> Jefferson Davis: 45 - 55 & 50 - 50.
Well, actually, the divisions probably go back to Strom Thurmond and his
"Segregation Forever" campaign in, what was it, 1948? Then Goldwater
picked up the theme, then Nixon, and then Reagan put a fine polish on
it. By the time we got to Clinton, the country was nicely divided,
south against north just like in the good old days. Now we have income
divisions (Demos and Repubs on the same side of the fence in that one),
racial divisions (related to income divisions), gender divisions, age
divisions (elderly against the young)....
Yup, we have a nicely divided America. Probably the only thing we
pretty much agree on is that blow jobs are a private matter. But then,
maybe not.
Ed Hooks
GHouck
>
> GHouck wrote
> >The ol' American way: Guilty until proven Innocent! Nope,
> >it was up to the House Managers to prove guilt, not for
> >Clinton to prove innocence.
>
> Yes, you are right. However, when 45 senators decided at the "get-go" that
> if you just look at the 55 senators who decided to pay attention to that
> evidence -- look at these results: 45 of 55 voted to convict on one article
> and 50 of 55 voted to convict on the other. If the democRATs had just
> listened to the evidence, if they had paid attention, followed the
> constituion, voted according to their morals and conscienses, I believe we
> would have a new president: AL Gore - today.
By your twisted logic, we could argue that the Conservative
Senators had also made up their minds from the 'get-go'. I
was listening to Rep comments throughout that gave the
same indication of pre-judgement of which you accuse the
Dems. Does it mean something different for the Reps to
behave this way, as opposed to the Dems?
ghouck
GHouck
Ed,
You made your readers wade through all that crap about
divisions within our society, just to keep them from
getting to the topic they were most interested
in: blowjobs.
It's not about sex, but that is what they've boiled
it down to, and they don't want to talk about the
real issues facing us until they've squeezed (so
to speak) this one into submission. They hope/predict
the American public will forget about their fellatio
campaign, but yet it seems they plan on keeping the
supply lines open to Mr Starr for further forays.
Screw the issues, full spunk ahead.
ghouck
J. Linwood
If so, you have to claim that the Constitution failed, that it is an
inadequate intrument for dealing with leaders that are a threat to nation.
The 2/3 supermajority provision is either wise or it is not. This provision
is based on the assumption that US senators will rise above politics when
the threat is real or the crime is such that the people who elected the
President turn on him and reject him. The framers realized that there are
many shades of opinion in politics, religions and morals and that those
issues can easily break along party lines, but there will not be divided
opinions about serious crimes or grave danger to the nation. By now you must
realize that the majority of Americans don't think like you do. If you are a
minority, under the Constitution you will be heard but you will not prevail.
That is America, and apparently you have not made peace with that philosophy
of government. You would rather have it your way, and if it does not happen
you whine that the Constitutiton is wrong, that the majority is depraved and
that there is just a few honest men left, especially you. I have news for
you - that is only your prespective, and other good and honest people
disagree with you, and this time there is a lot more of them than of your
kind. The Constitution is still a masterpiece. The Constitution is right.
Stop whining and try to understand what happened here.
Linus F. Zimmerman <esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote in message
news:36C59F32...@tabletoptelephone.com...
>
>
>Robert McCallum wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:56:13 -0500, Aircontrol <"he's still guilty
>> "@f.lying.to.America> wrote:
>>
>> >CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH AND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.......EVEN THE DEMOS
>> >ADMITTED HE DID THIS BUT YET VOTED TO ACQUIT.......WHAT STUPIDITY!!!
>>
>> Correcton: Democrats and 10 Republicans. It was bipartisan acquital.
>
>
>Only a 100% brain-dead person could convince themselves of that.
>
>The Democrats were always expected to vote acquittal since they
>invariably put party before country.
>
>The Republicans who voted with them all have a common problem.
>Large numbers of Liberals in their states whom they feared.
>
>It was a fixed jury by any standard. Had absolutely nothing to
>do with guilty or innocent. Strictly political motives and it
>could have been murder and turned out the same way.
>
Surfin' AL
Poop's office and issued forth article
<36ca8082....@news.newsguy.com>...
|
| The electorate produced this divide, actually.
|
| About as many Republicans as Democrats.
|
|
| George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Actually the electorate was responsible; if they hadn't been so stupid as
to elect Clinton in the first place none of this would have happened.
Remember, out of a population of 256 million people, only 47 million voted
for Clinton. Hardly the people's choice. Even averaging out the non-voters,
that's still not many.
James R. Olson, jr.
>
>I see clinton has divided this country more than any president since
>Jefferson Davis: 45 - 55 & 50 - 50.
>
I'll let all the other stupidity pass, I'd just like to point out to
you that the Senate is not the nation. The division in the nation is
more like 70-30, and there always seems to have been that 30% who just
plain hate the guy and don't care what it takes to get him. The
undecided have gone solidly to the side of Clinton now, thanks to the
pathetic performance of every fool in the beltway, media or
politician.
I guess it goes to show, you can fool some of the people all of the
time, but the rest catch on eventually.
I'm sure all those Democratic candidates who were afraid to run on the
Clinton ticket in the last election are kicking themselves right now.
Joe Schembrie
world got away with sexual harrassment and perjury.
We all lost.
Joe Schembrie
American Parallax
http://cybooks.com/politics
Linus F. Zimmerman
term goals. Nothing else needs to be said.
LZ
Robert Herberg
Not quite 70/30, more like 30/70.
Michael J. Kiraly
>
> Another partisan of freedom gloating that the most powerful man in the
> world got away with sexual harrassment and perjury.
>
> We all lost.
>
No, you idiot, *you* lost. The gloating is over the fact that
an entire political party--minus a small handful whose votes would
not have mattered anyway, but who are to be commended for recognizing
reality despite what their leadership was apparently telling them--
was stymied in its efforts to remove a duly elected president guilty
of a consensual sexual dalliance.
The system works.
Clean your own house: Kindly remove your nose from Clinton's pants,
for Christ's sake, and put it where it will do you the most good--in
Gingrich's, Burton's, Barr's, Chenoweth's, and Livingston's.
Thomas Andrews
Patrick Barker <bark...@erinet.com> wrote:
>GHouck wrote
>>The ol' American way: Guilty until proven Innocent! Nope,
>>it was up to the House Managers to prove guilt, not for
>>Clinton to prove innocence.
>
>Yes, you are right. However, when 45 senators decided at the "get-go" that
Bzzzzzt! They listened to and heard all the evidence they needed.
The managers had not found any new evidence - had they wanted that, they
should have fought for witnesses in the house.
The Democrats agreed with several Republican prosecutors - this is not
a case that any prosecutor should pursue.
--
Thomas Andrews thom...@yahoo.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
Ken Starr: "I think that is an unfair question."
Barney Frank: "You're the expert on unfair questions. If
you're telling me it's an unfair question, I'll withdraw it."
Linus F. Zimmerman
Thomas Andrews wrote:
>
> In article <7a4dh3$c0g$1...@news.erinet.com>,
> Patrick Barker <bark...@erinet.com> wrote:
> >GHouck wrote
> >>The ol' American way: Guilty until proven Innocent! Nope,
> >>it was up to the House Managers to prove guilt, not for
> >>Clinton to prove innocence.
> >
Anyhow, that is the Democrat's home turf. ANYONE who they don't
approve of is guilty until proven innocent.
Remember The Clarence Thomas hearings before the Senate?
Democreeps could not STAND to have a Conservative African
American on the Supreme Court.
Result: All out war on Judge Thomas. Anita Hill was resurrected
and given the "victim" treatment by the Democreeps, the press and
the NOW coven of witches.
Everything she said was the gospel truth. Anything he said was
lies.
He was guilty. She was the innocent victim.
The fact that she followed him around and wrote him letters was
pooh-poohed as "irrelevant" and typical "victim pattern".
When Willie the Wagger committed sexual assault and groped
Kathleen Willey it was a whole different ball game.
The letters "proved it wasn't true". The fact that she was
deeply in debt, in danger of losing her home, etc. were
"irrelevant". The fact that she was terrorized, pressured, etc.
didn't count. Willie's friend taking the 5th Amendment to avoid
having to testify about his activities regarding Ms. Willey,
barely mentioned in the press or the media.
To be a Democreep one must remain in a continual state of Denial.
Yet they have the unmitigated gall to point a finger and say
"hypocrite".
I think the next 100 Democreeps who die should donate their
brains to medical science. It would be interesting to find out
what kind of systems failure is responsible. They owe it to
science and posterity.
LZ
Linus F. Zimmerman
Sorcerer wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:36:28 -0700 "Linus F. Zimmerman"
> <esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
> >Anyhow, that is the Democrat's home turf. ANYONE who they don't
> >approve of is guilty until proven innocent.
> >
> >Remember The Clarence Thomas hearings before the Senate?
> >Democreeps could not STAND to have a Conservative African
> >American on the Supreme Court.
>
> If that were true, Clarence Thomas would not have been confirmed by a
> Democratic Seante.
>
He trumped your ace by playing the "high-tech lynching" card and
Democrats were afraid other African Americans might agree with
him so they caved. If you don't know it, you're still in denial.
> Facts are awkward impediments to your little conspiracies, aren't they?
>
> >When Willie the Wagger committed sexual assault and groped
> >Kathleen Willey it was a whole different ball game.
>
> No, actually, the evidence was identical - there was not enough to
> convict in either case. Nobody was convicted in either case.
Thomas was on trial but not in a court. Clinton hasn't been
there (yet).
I notice you had to delete all the facts before you could post a
rebuttal. Your usual slimy technique.
>
> Facts are awkward impediments to your little conspiracies, aren't they?
>
> >To be a Democreep one must remain in a continual state of Denial.
>
> I don't deny that Bill Clinton was acquitted of all charges by a
> Republican-controlled US Senate; in fact, I celebrate it as a triumph
> of the American Way of Government.
>
Jury tampering is not the American Way of Government.
> "Willie the Wagger"? "Sexual Assault"? "Democreep"? "Coven of
> Witches"?
>
> Your post makes it quite clear that *you* are the one in a state of
> denial; *we* are quite satisfied with the outcome!
>
> After the unsubstatiated allegations of the past year, you really have
> nothing to lose; your credibility is zero anyway. But your post shows
> quite clearly *why* it is zero.
You never had any. If you have a brain it's not in running
order.
>
> Bongo! Bongo! Bongo!
David Annis
<esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Remember The Clarence Thomas hearings before the Senate?
>Democreeps could not STAND to have a Conservative African
>American on the Supreme Court.
>
>Result: All out war on Judge Thomas. Anita Hill was resurrected
>and given the "victim" treatment by the Democreeps, the press and
>the NOW coven of witches.
>
<snip more of the same>
Did I miss something? I was under the impression that the Democratic
majority at the time confirmed his appointment.
******************************************************
* Dave Annis | With age comes wisdom, if you *
* Sheboygan, WI | stay awake along the way! *
******************************************************
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:36:28 -0700, "Linus F. Zimmerman"
: <esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
: <snip>
: >
: >Remember The Clarence Thomas hearings before the Senate?
: >Democreeps could not STAND to have a Conservative African
: >American on the Supreme Court.
: >
: >Result: All out war on Judge Thomas. Anita Hill was resurrected
: >and given the "victim" treatment by the Democreeps, the press and
: >the NOW coven of witches.
: >
: <snip more of the same>
: Did I miss something? I was under the impression that the Democratic
: majority at the time confirmed his appointment.
Yes, you missed something. These rightwing loons whine even in victory.
If they get 99% of the pie, they sulk for years over the other 1% instead
of counting their blessings.
--
Buddy K
"The Republicans' woes are everyone else's fault. Newt Gingrich may be
gone, but now more than ever the G.O.P. is the party of crybabies."
--FRANK RICH The Crybaby Party, NY Times, January 27, 1999
Linus F. Zimmerman
David Annis wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:36:28 -0700, "Linus F. Zimmerman"
> <esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >Remember The Clarence Thomas hearings before the Senate?
> >Democreeps could not STAND to have a Conservative African
> >American on the Supreme Court.
> >
> >Result: All out war on Judge Thomas. Anita Hill was resurrected
> >and given the "victim" treatment by the Democreeps, the press and
> >the NOW coven of witches.
> >
> <snip more of the same>
>
> Did I miss something? I was under the impression that the Democratic
> majority at the time confirmed his appointment.
You obviously didn't watch the hearings. The Democraps were
howling for his blood. Then he trumped their ace by calling
their smear tactics a "high tech lynching". Because he was an
African American they backed off quickly, fearing they would
antagonize the minority vote. Hee Hee, Old Clarence used their
own methods to outwit them.
LZ
Linus F. Zimmerman
"HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR." wrote:
>
> David Annis (dan...@execpc.com) wrote:
> : On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:36:28 -0700, "Linus F. Zimmerman"
> : <esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
> : <snip>
> : >
> : >Remember The Clarence Thomas hearings before the Senate?
> : >Democreeps could not STAND to have a Conservative African
> : >American on the Supreme Court.
> : >
> : >Result: All out war on Judge Thomas. Anita Hill was resurrected
> : >and given the "victim" treatment by the Democreeps, the press and
> : >the NOW coven of witches.
> : >
> : <snip more of the same>
>
> : Did I miss something? I was under the impression that the Democratic
> : majority at the time confirmed his appointment.
>
> Yes, you missed something. These rightwing loons whine even in victory.
> If they get 99% of the pie, they sulk for years over the other 1% instead
> of counting their blessings.
>
> --
Henry the Heroic is still pissy because he didn't want Clarence
in.
Henry is a racist you see but he covers it up with Liberal
rhetoric.
What really got Henry's goat was that Judge Thomas used the
Liberal's own tactics on them and left them seething. Hee Hee Ha
ha.
See when the Democrats got really vicious, Clarence called it a
"high tech lynching" and played the "race" card, a gambit
patented by the Democreeps. What could they say? They didn't
want to antagonize their minority voters so they bit their
tongues and they still smart.
Oh! The irony of it all. Hee Hee, Haw, Haw, Ho Ho Ho, chuckle,
snort.
LZ
Linus F. Zimmerman
Sorcerer wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 20:55:23 GMT dan...@execpc.com (David Annis)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:36:28 -0700, "Linus F. Zimmerman"
> ><esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >>
> >>Remember The Clarence Thomas hearings before the Senate?
> >>Democreeps could not STAND to have a Conservative African
> >>American on the Supreme Court.
> >>
> >>Result: All out war on Judge Thomas. Anita Hill was resurrected
> >>and given the "victim" treatment by the Democreeps, the press and
> >>the NOW coven of witches.
> >>
> ><snip more of the same>
> >
> >Did I miss something? I was under the impression that the Democratic
> >majority at the time confirmed his appointment.
>
> You didn't miss anything.
>
> Linus did.
Wrong, Linus watched all the hearings on C-Span. The Democreeps
did their best to sink Judge Thomas by making a big deal of Ms.
Hill's allegations. Clarence foiled them by taking a page from
their own playbook. Hee Hee. He accused them of holding a
"hi-tech lynching" and used the "race" card on them. What could
they do? What could they say? Not a damned thing. They didn't
want to antagonize their minority voters so they caved in. Here
the poor bastards were, hoist on their own petard. They thought
they had the "race card" patented for their sole use. Oh! The
irony of it all.
Meantime Ms. Hills allegations were a lot less than Ms. Willey's
or Paula Jones' but the Democrats and the NOW broom-riders took
them as Gospel truth. With them it wasn't a simple he said-she
said, oh no. Ms. Hill had 5 truckloads of credibility because
Judge Thomas was a Conservative and therefore should not be on
the Supreme Court. The Democreeps tried the methods they used on
Judge Bork but they didn't work this time. Too bad, so sad, your
dad.
LZ
AZWAL...@aol.com
> >
> Hahaha... Looks like our wingnut friends could use a heapin' helpin'
> of prozac right now.
> --
> Conservatism: The haunting fear that somewhere,
> someone is having a good time.
>
Conservatism: the haunting fear that Telly Tubbies can explain life's
mysteries.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
the auctioneer
Linus F. Zimmerman wrote in message
>
>
>David Annis wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:36:28 -0700, "Linus F. Zimmerman"
>> <esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >Remember The Clarence Thomas hearings before the Senate?
>> >Democreeps could not STAND to have a Conservative African
>> >American on the Supreme Court.
>> >
>> >Result: All out war on Judge Thomas. Anita Hill was resurrected
>> >and given the "victim" treatment by the Democreeps, the press and
>> >the NOW coven of witches.
>> >
>> <snip more of the same>
>>
>> Did I miss something? I was under the impression that the Democratic
>> majority at the time confirmed his appointment.
>
>howling for his blood. Then he trumped their ace by calling
>their smear tactics a "high tech lynching". Because he was an
>African American they backed off quickly, fearing they would
>antagonize the minority vote. Hee Hee, Old Clarence used their
>own methods to outwit them.
>LZ
>
Action should be done away with, yet benefitted from it himself. Put him
through college, as a matter of fact. Pretty neat, eh? Kinda like an "I
got mine" attitude. Yep....good old hypocrite Thomas. What a coincidence
he married Rush & his current wife, too. Amazing!
O/Siris
rush...@geocities.com says...
> Correcton: Democrats and 10 Republicans. It was bipartisan acquital.
>
Correction back at ya.
The ten GOP members weren't admitting that he lied under
oath. At a minimum, Senator Byrd did just that.
Admitted he was guilty, and voted not guilty nonetheless.
--
创If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of
servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go
home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your
arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and
posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.创 --Samuel
Adams
O/Siris
Jess
}> >On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:36:28 -0700, "Linus F. Zimmerman"
}> >majority at the time confirmed his appointment.
}> You didn't miss anything.
}> Linus did.
} Too bad, so sad, your dad.
}LZ
Typical republipukes dribble.
Eric, da Red
Anthony Stephen Szopa <ant...@ciphile.com> wrote:
>"You stupid fuckers LOST!!! Bwahaahaahaahaahaa!!!!!!"
>
>Keep solely looking at the Impeachment trial, and telling yourself
>and others that the Republicans lost and that the democrats won.
Casually review everything I've said in the post-impeachment world,
and you'll find nothing remotely like "democrats won."
Since I'm not a Democrat and generally dislike them only slightly less
than Republicans, I don't care if they regard this as a victory.
What IS clear is that the American Taliban lost, and that's a welcome
result.
>Don't dare look in the mirror and try to explain to the person you see
>in there exactly what you won... and what you have lost.
Ok.
"Hey you in the mirror, the American Taliban lost a big one."
Sounds pretty nice.
>"What is there to celebrate?" - Joe Lockhart, White House Press
>Secretary, 1999.
>
>I see clinton has divided this country more than any president since
>Jefferson Davis: 45 - 55 & 50 - 50.
Your deep and prevasive ignorance of American history is awesome.
Wildly entertaining, but awesome.
>Does anyone really think this is going to change with just one more
>lying speech from clinton?
>
>Live with it. And above all, remember the democratic imperative: lie
>like hell!
The sad thing is, you will probably never get it.
>Of course, democrats hardly need reminding of this. It comes as
>naturally as the knee jerk when the doctor taps your kneecap with that
>silly little rubber hammer.
Or, in your case, the remnants of your cerebrum.
>Schizodemocrat: a new psychiatric mental disorder characterized by
>delusions of political grandeur, a severe impairment of moral judgment,
>the complete loss of the capacity for remorse, and the pathological
>proclivity to lie like hell.
Sounds disturbingly like you.
Looks like psychological projection at work.
--
Dialogue Of The Week:
Movie: "Here's something."
Tom Servo: "You could say that about anything."
JELink
>What IS clear is that the American Taliban lost, and that's a welcome
>result.
Wait a sec...wasn't it that notorious member of the American Taliban >Alec
Baldwin< who suggested that Hyde et al should be stoned, and their wives and
children killed?
What person in the pro-impeachment camp ever said anything as strident and
bloodthirsty???
&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&
"In the Valley of the Blind Men, the One-Eyed Man gets to fool around a lot."
&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&
Eric, da Red
Joe Schembrie <joes...@seanet.com> wrote:
>Another partisan of freedom gloating that the most powerful man in the
>world got away with sexual harrassment and perjury.
Sexual harassment was not part of the Articles of Impeachment,
although the GOP pundits did talk a lot about sex while denying that
it was all about sex.
Although very weak, the best chance for a perjury conviction would
have been for Clinton's testimony in the PJ case - but this wasn't
part of the charges reviewed by the Senate.
>We all lost.
The people who attempted to use the power of the judiciary to achieve
political ends lost. This means that most people won.
adrien...@my-dejanews.com
> Of course, democrats hardly need reminding of this. It comes as
> naturally as the knee jerk when the doctor taps your kneecap with that
> silly little rubber hammer.
>
> Everyone sees right here in these newsgroups: the democrats simply
> cannot stop lying.
Hold on right there - you are right that nobody is a winner here, but putting
all the blame on all the Democrats is not exactly fair.
>
> This is what democrats will expend most of their energy doing for the
> foreseeable future at the detriment of the Nation. But this is their
> intention: to continue to harm the nation.
Please explain to me (I'm a little dense) what the Republicans were hoping to
accomplish by flushing out his heavy petting sessions? Was that to save the
country?
Because there are SO many of us that really don't care about his personal life
AT ALL. On the other hand, putting the country through the trials and
tribulations was the fault of BOTH parties (damn, I wish we could abolish
parties and just have these politicians go on their own merit).
It seems to me that there is enough blame to go around.
>
> Schizodemocrat: a new psychiatric mental disorder characterized by
> delusions of political grandeur, a severe impairment of moral judgment,
> the complete loss of the capacity for remorse, and the pathological
> proclivity to lie like hell.
>
In other words, most of the politicians (even some of the great leaders) that
has ever held office, in any party.
God help us.