Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
An article of impeachment
35 views
Skip to first unread message
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 12, 2013, 7:23:56 PM5/12/13
to
“’He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored…to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,’
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
May 13, 2013, 1:53:29 AM5/13/13
to
In article <663749cf-2241-4c67...@googlegroups.com>,
ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored�to cause, in
but it's too late to impeach either Bush
ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored�to cause, in
> violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or
> other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a
> discriminatory manner,�
> other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a
but it's too late to impeach either Bush
Keith W
May 13, 2013, 4:41:05 AM5/13/13
to
ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored�to cause,
That hardly falls under the remit of ' treason, bribery, or other high
crimes
and misdemeanours' even if true. Hell they couldnt impeach a president
for perjury so a dodgy tax investigation ordered by a minion stands no
chance.
Keith
> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored�to cause,
> in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax
> audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted
> in a discriminatory manner,�
> audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted
That hardly falls under the remit of ' treason, bribery, or other high
crimes
and misdemeanours' even if true. Hell they couldnt impeach a president
for perjury so a dodgy tax investigation ordered by a minion stands no
chance.
Keith
Message has been deleted
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 13, 2013, 11:21:52 AM5/13/13
to
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> “’He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored…to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,’
That article of impeachment was from those to be used on Nixon before he resigned. The same should apply to Obama.
> “’He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored…to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,’
Bill
May 13, 2013, 11:28:33 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:21:52 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored�to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,�
>
>That article of impeachment was from those to be used on Nixon before he resigned. The same should apply to Obama.
Have you any idea just how stupidly embarrassing you sound?
To try to impeach your president for squalid local political reasons
makes the US a laughing stock.
wrote:
>On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored�to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,�
>
>That article of impeachment was from those to be used on Nixon before he resigned. The same should apply to Obama.
To try to impeach your president for squalid local political reasons
makes the US a laughing stock.
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 13, 2013, 11:32:12 AM5/13/13
to
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> “’He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored…to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,’
"Squalid political reasons " include violations of basic rights of citizens, violations of the law and what amounted to a rigged election by suppression of votes. Of course, I expect to be able to add "Incompetence" to the last after we know a lot more about Benghazi.
Message has been deleted
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 13, 2013, 11:51:35 AM5/13/13
to
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> “’He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored…to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,’
Once the Benghazi coverup fails and the IRS scandal generates outrage, people will begin paying attention to Obama's sale of illegal weapons to Mexican drug gangs in Fast and Furious to finance his campaign. There will be plenty of stuff for the basis of articles of impeachment. With the failure of his economic policies, plenty of people will be mad enough too.
Bill
May 13, 2013, 12:03:48 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:32:12 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored�to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,�
>
>"Squalid political reasons " include violations of basic rights of citizens, violations of the law and what amounted to a rigged election by suppression of votes. Of course, I expect to be able to add "Incompetence" to the last after we know a lot more about Benghazi.
Bullshit.
It's being done by his political opponents for their own squalid and
corrupt reasons.
wrote:
>On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored�to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,�
>
>"Squalid political reasons " include violations of basic rights of citizens, violations of the law and what amounted to a rigged election by suppression of votes. Of course, I expect to be able to add "Incompetence" to the last after we know a lot more about Benghazi.
It's being done by his political opponents for their own squalid and
corrupt reasons.
Bill
May 13, 2013, 12:04:23 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:51:35 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored�to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,�
>
>Once the Benghazi coverup fails
There is no cover-up you loon.
It's utterly spurious.
wrote:
>On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored�to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,�
>
>Once the Benghazi coverup fails
It's utterly spurious.
Message has been deleted
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 13, 2013, 1:36:28 PM5/13/13
to
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> “’He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored…to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,’
Of course there was no coverup, they lied because that's what they do.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
May 13, 2013, 1:40:03 PM5/13/13
to
In article <f9b531d3-3082-4f0e...@googlegroups.com>,
ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > łąHe has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavoredŠto cause, in
> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or
> > other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a
> > discriminatory manner,ą
> > other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a
>
> "Squalid political reasons " include violations of basic rights of citizens,
> violations of the law and what amounted to a rigged election by suppression
> of votes. Of course, I expect to be able to add "Incompetence" to the last
> after we know a lot more about Benghazi.
well you can't fault the republicans for doing what they do best
> "Squalid political reasons " include violations of basic rights of citizens,
> violations of the law and what amounted to a rigged election by suppression
> of votes. Of course, I expect to be able to add "Incompetence" to the last
> after we know a lot more about Benghazi.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
May 13, 2013, 1:42:00 PM5/13/13
to
In article <hoc1p8pub47tqolin...@4ax.com>,
Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> ìíHe has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavoredÖto cause,
> political opponents is considered pretty seriously over here.
Yet Nixon wasn't impeached
>
> >
> >Hell they couldnt impeach a president
> >for perjury so a dodgy tax investigation ordered by a minion stands no
> >chance.
> >
>
> Uh, they DID impeach said President. What they couldn't do was get a
> Senate run by that President's party to do what it was supposed to do
> and convict. They won't be able to this time, either.
Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> ìíHe has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavoredÖto cause,
> >> in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax
> >> audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted
> >> in a discriminatory manner,í
> >> audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted
> >
> >That hardly falls under the remit of ' treason, bribery, or other high
> >crimes and misdemeanours' even if true.
> >
>
> Actually, yes, it does. Using the machinery of government against
> >That hardly falls under the remit of ' treason, bribery, or other high
> >crimes and misdemeanours' even if true.
> >
>
> political opponents is considered pretty seriously over here.
Yet Nixon wasn't impeached
>
> >
> >Hell they couldnt impeach a president
> >for perjury so a dodgy tax investigation ordered by a minion stands no
> >chance.
> >
>
> Senate run by that President's party to do what it was supposed to do
> and convict. They won't be able to this time, either.
ohar...@mindspring.com
May 13, 2013, 1:59:58 PM5/13/13
to
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> “’He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored…to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,’
If Obama would follow Nixon's example, he won't get impeached either.
Dean Markley
May 13, 2013, 2:28:41 PM5/13/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:28:33 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:21:52 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored�to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,�
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:21:52 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
> >
>
> >That article of impeachment was from those to be used on Nixon before he resigned. The same should apply to Obama.
>
>
>
> Have you any idea just how stupidly embarrassing you sound?
>
>
>
> To try to impeach your president for squalid local political reasons
>
> makes the US a laughing stock.
And the UK doesn't do the same to it's squalid politicians?
> >
>
> >That article of impeachment was from those to be used on Nixon before he resigned. The same should apply to Obama.
>
>
>
> Have you any idea just how stupidly embarrassing you sound?
>
>
>
> To try to impeach your president for squalid local political reasons
>
> makes the US a laughing stock.
Keith W
May 13, 2013, 2:49:04 PM5/13/13
to
Dean Markley wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:28:33 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:21:52 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored�to
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:28:33 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:21:52 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens,
>>>> income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be
>>>> initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,�
>>>> income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be
>>
>>>
>>
>>> That article of impeachment was from those to be used on Nixon
>>> before he resigned. The same should apply to Obama.
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you any idea just how stupidly embarrassing you sound?
>>
>>
>>
>> To try to impeach your president for squalid local political reasons
>>
>> makes the US a laughing stock.
>
> And the UK doesn't do the same to it's squalid politicians?
We dont have impeachment for politicians.
>>>
>>
>>> That article of impeachment was from those to be used on Nixon
>>> before he resigned. The same should apply to Obama.
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you any idea just how stupidly embarrassing you sound?
>>
>>
>>
>> To try to impeach your president for squalid local political reasons
>>
>> makes the US a laughing stock.
>
> And the UK doesn't do the same to it's squalid politicians?
If they break the law they get prosecuted in the same criminal
courts as anyone else. An ex minister and his rx-wife just got
out of jail for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/nine-weeks-is-a-long-time-in-politics-vicky-pryce-and-chris-huhne-released-but-what-will-they-do-next-8612974.html
They are not the first and they wont be the last.
Keith
peter skelton
May 13, 2013, 3:42:15 PM5/13/13
to
wrote in message
news:5e7d690f-b63b-4695...@googlegroups.com...
> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents,
> endeavored�to cause, in violation of the constitutional
>If Obama would follow Nixon's example, he won't get
>impeached either.
Nixon got shit-canned/resigned because of massive public
outrage over his behaviour. If there were the same outrage
over Obama, he'd have to leave too. There isn't.
news:5e7d690f-b63b-4695...@googlegroups.com...
> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents,
> endeavored�to cause, in violation of the constitutional
> rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax
> investigation to be initiated or conducted in a
> discriminatory manner,�
> investigation to be initiated or conducted in a
>If Obama would follow Nixon's example, he won't get
>impeached either.
outrage over his behaviour. If there were the same outrage
over Obama, he'd have to leave too. There isn't.
Bill
May 13, 2013, 5:27:17 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 11:28:41 -0700 (PDT), Dean Markley
<dama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:28:33 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:21:52 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> >> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored�to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,�
<dama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:28:33 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:21:52 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That article of impeachment was from those to be used on Nixon before he resigned. The same should apply to Obama.
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you any idea just how stupidly embarrassing you sound?
>>
>>
>>
>> To try to impeach your president for squalid local political reasons
>>
>> makes the US a laughing stock.
>
>And the UK doesn't do the same to it's squalid politicians?
The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>> >
>>
>> >That article of impeachment was from those to be used on Nixon before he resigned. The same should apply to Obama.
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you any idea just how stupidly embarrassing you sound?
>>
>>
>>
>> To try to impeach your president for squalid local political reasons
>>
>> makes the US a laughing stock.
>
>And the UK doesn't do the same to it's squalid politicians?
I don't think a head of government (Prime Minister) has ever been
dragged through the courts for malfeasance.
peter skelton
May 13, 2013, 6:08:50 PM5/13/13
to
"Bill" wrote in message
news:eim2p8h6gkjcdfms1...@4ax.com...
1936
news:eim2p8h6gkjcdfms1...@4ax.com...
Bill
May 13, 2013, 6:30:03 PM5/13/13
to
peter skelton
May 13, 2013, 7:32:43 PM5/13/13
to
"Bill" wrote in message
news:vaq2p8hd9uqulcvjc...@4ax.com...
So did NIxon
news:vaq2p8hd9uqulcvjc...@4ax.com...
Bill
May 13, 2013, 7:56:34 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:32:43 -0400, "peter skelton"
Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
peter skelton
May 13, 2013, 8:24:16 PM5/13/13
to
"Bill" wrote in message
news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
May 14, 2013, 2:12:57 AM5/14/13
to
In article <ggf3p811k93leflsm...@4ax.com>,
> had a more highly developed sense of shame
you mis-spelled "political expediency"
than Bill Clinton
> apparently does.
> "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <hoc1p8pub47tqolin...@4ax.com>,
> > Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> >> ìíHe has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavoredÖto cause,
> >> >> in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax
> >> >> audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted
> >> >> in a discriminatory manner,í
> >> >
> >> >That hardly falls under the remit of ' treason, bribery, or other high
> >> >crimes and misdemeanours' even if true.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually, yes, it does. Using the machinery of government against
> >> political opponents is considered pretty seriously over here.
> >>
> >
> >Yet Nixon wasn't impeached
> >
>
> Only because he resigned ahead of it. Sadly, this shows that NIXON
>
> >In article <hoc1p8pub47tqolin...@4ax.com>,
> > Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> >> ìíHe has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavoredÖto cause,
> >> >> in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax
> >> >> audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted
> >> >> in a discriminatory manner,í
> >> >
> >> >That hardly falls under the remit of ' treason, bribery, or other high
> >> >crimes and misdemeanours' even if true.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually, yes, it does. Using the machinery of government against
> >> political opponents is considered pretty seriously over here.
> >>
> >
> >Yet Nixon wasn't impeached
> >
>
> had a more highly developed sense of shame
you mis-spelled "political expediency"
than Bill Clinton
> apparently does.
Keith W
May 14, 2013, 3:33:28 AM5/14/13
to
Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 11:28:41 -0700 (PDT), Dean Markley
> <dama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:28:33 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:21:52 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents,
>>>>> endeavored�to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights
>>>>> of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation
>>>>> to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,�
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> That article of impeachment was from those to be used on Nixon
>>>> before he resigned. The same should apply to Obama.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Have you any idea just how stupidly embarrassing you sound?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To try to impeach your president for squalid local political reasons
>>>
>>> makes the US a laughing stock.
>>
>> And the UK doesn't do the same to it's squalid politicians?
>
> The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>
> I don't think a head of government (Prime Minister) has ever been
> dragged through the courts for malfeasance.
Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland was investigated over
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 11:28:41 -0700 (PDT), Dean Markley
> <dama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:28:33 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:21:52 -0700 (PDT), ohar...@mindspring.com
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:23:56 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ��He has, through his subordinated and agents,
>>>>> endeavored�to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights
>>>>> of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation
>>>>> to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,�
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> That article of impeachment was from those to be used on Nixon
>>>> before he resigned. The same should apply to Obama.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Have you any idea just how stupidly embarrassing you sound?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To try to impeach your president for squalid local political reasons
>>>
>>> makes the US a laughing stock.
>>
>> And the UK doesn't do the same to it's squalid politicians?
>
> The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>
> I don't think a head of government (Prime Minister) has ever been
> dragged through the courts for malfeasance.
his interest in the South Sea Bubble. He was officially acquitted
by the House of Commons but was forced to resign and in reality
only his influence with Walpole got him off.
Keith
Bill
May 14, 2013, 6:02:50 AM5/14/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:24:16 -0400, "peter skelton"
>news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
>news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>>>
>>>1936
>>
>>>He resigned.
>>
>>So did NIxon
>>
>>Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
>
>And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
I think you'll find that he wasn't a traitor.
>>>>The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>>>
>>>1936
>>
>>>He resigned.
>>
>>So did NIxon
>>
>>Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
>
>And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
Bill
May 14, 2013, 6:05:24 AM5/14/13
to
instituted the office of Prime Minister.
peter skelton
May 14, 2013, 7:22:23 AM5/14/13
to
"Bill" wrote in message
news:4t24p8lufu1upk64s...@4ax.com...
Other than leaking that the allies were not defending the
Ardennes and trying energetically to undermine the pound, he
wasn't caught at anything much. At the time in question he
was pro-nazi and anti-rearmament.
news:4t24p8lufu1upk64s...@4ax.com...
Ardennes and trying energetically to undermine the pound, he
wasn't caught at anything much. At the time in question he
was pro-nazi and anti-rearmament.
Bill
May 14, 2013, 7:29:21 AM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:22:23 -0400, "peter skelton"
> and trying energetically to undermine the pound,
Again.
> At the time in question he
>was pro-nazi and anti-rearmament.
So was a reasonable proportion of the then government including the
Astors and Lord Halifax.
<skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>"Bill" wrote in message
>news:4t24p8lufu1upk64s...@4ax.com...
>
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:24:16 -0400, "peter skelton"
><skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Bill" wrote in message
>>news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>>The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>>>>
>>>>1936
>>>
>>>>He resigned.
>>>
>>>So did NIxon
>>>
>>>Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
>>
>>And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
>
>>I think you'll find that he wasn't a traitor.
>
>Other than leaking that the allies were not defending the
>Ardennes
Cite please.
>"Bill" wrote in message
>news:4t24p8lufu1upk64s...@4ax.com...
>
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:24:16 -0400, "peter skelton"
><skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Bill" wrote in message
>>news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>>The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>>>>
>>>>1936
>>>
>>>>He resigned.
>>>
>>>So did NIxon
>>>
>>>Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
>>
>>And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
>
>>I think you'll find that he wasn't a traitor.
>
>Other than leaking that the allies were not defending the
>Ardennes
> and trying energetically to undermine the pound,
> At the time in question he
>was pro-nazi and anti-rearmament.
Astors and Lord Halifax.
peter skelton
May 14, 2013, 8:36:45 AM5/14/13
to
"Bill" wrote in message
news:1t74p8t4rvnujr5l7...@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:22:23 -0400, "peter skelton"
<skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>"Bill" wrote in message
>news:4t24p8lufu1upk64s...@4ax.com...
>
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:24:16 -0400, "peter skelton"
><skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Bill" wrote in message
>>news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>>The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>>>>
>>>>1936
>>>
>>>>He resigned.
>>>
>>>So did NIxon
>>>
>>>Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
>>
>>And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
>
>>I think you'll find that he wasn't a traitor.
>
>Other than leaking that the allies were not defending the
>Ardennes
>Cite please.
OFCS do your own basic homework
> and trying energetically to undermine the pound,
>Again.
Jeezuz, that is even better known
> At the time in question he
>was pro-nazi and anti-rearmament.
>So was a reasonable proportion of the then government
>including the
Astors and Lord Halifax.
true
news:1t74p8t4rvnujr5l7...@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:22:23 -0400, "peter skelton"
<skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>"Bill" wrote in message
>news:4t24p8lufu1upk64s...@4ax.com...
>
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:24:16 -0400, "peter skelton"
><skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Bill" wrote in message
>>news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>>The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>>>>
>>>>1936
>>>
>>>>He resigned.
>>>
>>>So did NIxon
>>>
>>>Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
>>
>>And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
>
>>I think you'll find that he wasn't a traitor.
>
>Other than leaking that the allies were not defending the
>Ardennes
>Cite please.
> and trying energetically to undermine the pound,
>Again.
> At the time in question he
>was pro-nazi and anti-rearmament.
>So was a reasonable proportion of the then government
>including the
Astors and Lord Halifax.
Bill
May 14, 2013, 11:29:30 AM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:36:45 -0400, "peter skelton"
<skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>"Bill" wrote in message
>news:1t74p8t4rvnujr5l7...@4ax.com...
>
>On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:22:23 -0400, "peter skelton"
><skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Bill" wrote in message
>>news:4t24p8lufu1upk64s...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:24:16 -0400, "peter skelton"
>><skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill" wrote in message
>>>news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>>>The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>>>>>
>>>>>1936
>>>>
>>>>>He resigned.
>>>>
>>>>So did NIxon
>>>>
>>>>Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
>>>
>>>And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
>>
>>>I think you'll find that he wasn't a traitor.
>>
>>Other than leaking that the allies were not defending the
>>Ardennes
>
>>Cite please.
>
>OFCS do your own basic homework
Oh no you don't, you made the claim, you post the proof.
>"Bill" wrote in message
>news:1t74p8t4rvnujr5l7...@4ax.com...
>
>On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:22:23 -0400, "peter skelton"
><skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Bill" wrote in message
>>news:4t24p8lufu1upk64s...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:24:16 -0400, "peter skelton"
>><skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill" wrote in message
>>>news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>>>The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>>>>>
>>>>>1936
>>>>
>>>>>He resigned.
>>>>
>>>>So did NIxon
>>>>
>>>>Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
>>>
>>>And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
>>
>>>I think you'll find that he wasn't a traitor.
>>
>>Other than leaking that the allies were not defending the
>>Ardennes
>
>>Cite please.
>
>OFCS do your own basic homework
peter skelton
May 14, 2013, 1:01:07 PM5/14/13
to
"Bill" wrote in message
news:m1m4p8tq2ke3f4gml...@4ax.com...
This ain't kindergarten
news:m1m4p8tq2ke3f4gml...@4ax.com...
Dean Markley
May 14, 2013, 2:05:58 PM5/14/13
to
tutall
May 14, 2013, 2:07:49 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 11:05 am, Dean Markley <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:29:30 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:36:45 -0400, "peter skelton"
>
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:29:30 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:36:45 -0400, "peter skelton"
>
> > <skelto...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > >"Bill" wrote in message
>
> > >news:1t74p8t4rvnujr5l7...@4ax.com...
>
> > >On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:22:23 -0400, "peter skelton"
>
>
> > >"Bill" wrote in message
>
> > >news:1t74p8t4rvnujr5l7...@4ax.com...
>
> > >On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:22:23 -0400, "peter skelton"
>
> > ><skelto...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > >>"Bill" wrote in message
>
> > >>news:4t24p8lufu1upk64s...@4ax.com...
>
> > >>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:24:16 -0400, "peter skelton"
>
>
> > >>"Bill" wrote in message
>
> > >>news:4t24p8lufu1upk64s...@4ax.com...
>
> > >>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:24:16 -0400, "peter skelton"
>
> > >><skelto...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > >>>"Bill" wrote in message
>
> > >>>news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
>
> > >>>>>>The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>
> > >>>>>1936
>
> > >>>>>He resigned.
>
> > >>>>So did NIxon
>
> > >>>>Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
>
> > >>>And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
>
> > >>>I think you'll find that he wasn't a traitor.
>
> > >>Other than leaking that the allies were not defending the
>
> > >>Ardennes
>
> > >>Cite please.
>
> > >OFCS do your own basic homework
>
> > Oh no you don't, you made the claim, you post the proof.
>
> I second that. You made the claim Peter, back it up.-
>
> > >>>"Bill" wrote in message
>
> > >>>news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
>
> > >>>>>>The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>
> > >>>>>1936
>
> > >>>>>He resigned.
>
> > >>>>So did NIxon
>
> > >>>>Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
>
> > >>>And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
>
> > >>>I think you'll find that he wasn't a traitor.
>
> > >>Other than leaking that the allies were not defending the
>
> > >>Ardennes
>
> > >>Cite please.
>
> > >OFCS do your own basic homework
>
> > Oh no you don't, you made the claim, you post the proof.
>
>
That's how it works or the claim fails.
Keith W
May 14, 2013, 3:01:55 PM5/14/13
to
peter skelton wrote:
> "Bill" wrote in message
> news:4t24p8lufu1upk64s...@4ax.com...
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:24:16 -0400, "peter skelton"
> <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Bill" wrote in message
>> news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>> The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>>>>
>>>> 1936
>>>
>>>> He resigned.
>>>
>>> So did NIxon
>>>
>>> Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
>>
>> And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
>
>> I think you'll find that he wasn't a traitor.
>
> Other than leaking that the allies were not defending the
> Ardennes
A rather dubious claim based on a story attributed to the German
> "Bill" wrote in message
> news:4t24p8lufu1upk64s...@4ax.com...
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:24:16 -0400, "peter skelton"
> <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Bill" wrote in message
>> news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>> The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>>>>
>>>> 1936
>>>
>>>> He resigned.
>>>
>>> So did NIxon
>>>
>>> Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
>>
>> And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
>
>> I think you'll find that he wasn't a traitor.
>
> Other than leaking that the allies were not defending the
> Ardennes
Minister to the Hague, Count Julius von Zech-Burkersroda
by a single author. Von Zech-Burkersroda died in Soviet captivity
in Jan 1946 so at best its a rumour nothing more.
In any event von Manstein had completed his planning for the
offensive by the end of October 1939 without the 'benefit' of
any advice from Prince Eddie.
Keith
Bill
May 14, 2013, 3:36:14 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 13:01:07 -0400, "peter skelton"
Who do you think you're dealing with here? Fred?
peter skelton
May 14, 2013, 3:43:39 PM5/14/13
to
"tutall" wrote in message
news:cfd07670-436b-4e4d...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
It is true or not on the facts you bloody idiot.
news:cfd07670-436b-4e4d...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
peter skelton
May 14, 2013, 3:53:29 PM5/14/13
to
"Keith W" wrote in message
news:BSvkt.78916$0F7....@fx27.fr7...
???? The plan followed some of Manstein's concepts, but was
not finalized until Feb '40 (I think Halder was the planner
but didn't look it up). M was not involved in the planning
as he was an army corps commander at the time.
news:BSvkt.78916$0F7....@fx27.fr7...
not finalized until Feb '40 (I think Halder was the planner
but didn't look it up). M was not involved in the planning
as he was an army corps commander at the time.
Keith W
May 14, 2013, 5:02:30 PM5/14/13
to
peter skelton wrote:
>
>> In any event von Manstein had completed his planning for
>> the
> offensive by the end of October 1939 without the 'benefit'
> of
> any advice from Prince Eddie.
>
> ???? The plan followed some of Manstein's concepts, but was
> not finalized until Feb '40 (I think Halder was the planner
> but didn't look it up). M was not involved in the planning
> as he was an army corps commander at the time.
Incorrect, I DID look it up :)
>
>> In any event von Manstein had completed his planning for
>> the
> offensive by the end of October 1939 without the 'benefit'
> of
> any advice from Prince Eddie.
>
> ???? The plan followed some of Manstein's concepts, but was
> not finalized until Feb '40 (I think Halder was the planner
> but didn't look it up). M was not involved in the planning
> as he was an army corps commander at the time.
Halder did the original plan which basically amounted
to a rerun of the WW1 Schliefenn plan. This was
rejected by Hitler and Von Runstedt. The revised plan
was called The Manstein Plan because he and Guderian
came up with the idea of an attack by the Panzer force
through the Ardennes. At the time Manstein was in fact
Chief Of Staff of Army Group A. He was appointed as
a corps commander in Feb 1940 after he had completed
his plan.
Mannstein first conceived the outline of this plan in October 1939
in Koblenz at the instigation of his superior, Gert Von Rundstedt
who disliked Halder's plan.
Halder then came up with a 4th plan which removed the
blitzkrieg drive by the Panzer force through the Ardennes.
In practise however von Brauchitsch , Guderian and Rommel
followed Mannsteins plan and drove through the Ardennes
to the Channel coast cutting the Allied force in two.
Keith
peter skelton
May 14, 2013, 5:04:58 PM5/14/13
to
"Keith W" wrote in message
news:FDxkt.32018$tf4....@fx26.fr7...
Bill
May 14, 2013, 5:11:24 PM5/14/13
to
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
May 14, 2013, 5:58:23 PM5/14/13
to
peter skelton wrote:
> "Bill" wrote in message news:4t24p8lufu1upk64s...@4ax.com...
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:24:16 -0400, "peter skelton"
> <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Bill" wrote in message
>> news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>> The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1936
>>>
>>>
>>>> He resigned.
>>>
>>>
>>> So did NIxon
>>>
>>> Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
>>
>>
>> And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
>
>
>> I think you'll find that he wasn't a traitor.
>
>
> Other than leaking that the allies were not defending the Ardennes
Skelton, that's a lie.
> "Bill" wrote in message news:4t24p8lufu1upk64s...@4ax.com...
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:24:16 -0400, "peter skelton"
> <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Bill" wrote in message
>> news:fcv2p8hecmv4ahp0e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>> The last time we sacked a head of state was 1688.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1936
>>>
>>>
>>>> He resigned.
>>>
>>>
>>> So did NIxon
>>>
>>> Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of malfeasance.
>>
>>
>> And Edward the last was a traitor. Have you a point?
>
>
>> I think you'll find that he wasn't a traitor.
>
>
> Other than leaking that the allies were not defending the Ardennes
;-)
jonathan
May 14, 2013, 6:52:52 PM5/14/13
to
<ohar...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:5e7d690f-b63b-4695...@googlegroups.com...
>If Obama would follow Nixon's example, he won't get impeached either.
Oh, so you're all upset over a few overzealous IRS agents eh?
Wow, crime of the century.
How does that compare to this republican crime? In my
state of Florida, our Tea Party governor refused to accept
$51 Billion dollars over the next 10 years from the feds
to pay for health insurance for the poor and unemployed.
And that was grants, not loans but free money.
$5,000,000,000 a year pays for the health insurance for
maybe 1 million people a year just in Florida. And since
Florida hasn't reduced the number of uninsured by refusing
this money, the hospitals that serve the poor are becoming
overwhelmed so even more poor people go without
health care as a result.
And you know why the Florida Governor refused this free
money??? He said he didn't want to set a precedent for
the future.
I guess the republicans don't want poor people getting
used to having health care. Isn't that special!
And you're fucking worried about whether some political
action committees rolling in hundreds of millions of political
slush funds were looked at by the IRS...inappropriately?
The republicans are just reverting to the instincts by
trying to win elections by scandal, when they know
they can't win on election day.
Pffft
peter skelton
May 14, 2013, 8:22:18 PM5/14/13
to
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." wrote in message
news:a_ydnQ8_TvnkLg_M...@supernews.com...
I might be incorrect, it is not possible it was a lie.
Now about your degree. . .
news:a_ydnQ8_TvnkLg_M...@supernews.com...
Now about your degree. . .
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
tutall
May 15, 2013, 1:16:13 AM5/15/13
to
On May 14, 9:34 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ><ohara...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> such thing as 'free money')?
>
> Glad to see that abuse of power doesn't bother you when you don't like
> the victims of it. One hopes you get a personal example of it some
> day.
We already know you've been a rape victim, it's obvious, why you keep
reminding everyone is not helpful to you.
Saw a good Op Ed on this earlier today about how these "charities" are
so badly abused. And yes, there are, in fact some of these that
support Dems, of course there are. There are, in fact, more
conservative ones, Rove's example ( he led the way naturally ) being
taken up first and strongest by fellow travelers. When things are
weighted 70/30 complaining of slant is specious. But that's no excuse,
not from this distance. We don't want this from our government. Except
of course when purging lefties of course. Then it's a-okay. Acorn?
Planned Parenthood? Agencies for consumers and citizens? Fuck em.
Now, is this IRS thing worse than the purging done by the Justice
Department un GW? I don't think so. And further, this IRS thing really
is a ground up thing, not top down. Nobody really thinks otherwise.
What people are trying to do is make Obama responsible for each and
every action by every Federal employee's actions, regardless. That's
plain overreach. Full stop. This does not pass any sort of smell test.
Now, what about the news agency emails? That's got some life IMO.
This op ed hoped that this might start a dialogue about the problem
these so called "non profit" organizations represent to our democracy.
Fat chance of that.
> "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ><ohara...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:5e7d690f-b63b-4695...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >>If Obama would follow Nixon's example, he won't get impeached either.
>
> >Oh, so you're all upset over a few overzealous IRS agents eh?
> >Wow, crime of the century.
>
> >How does that compare to this republican crime? In my
> >state of Florida, our Tea Party governor refused to accept
> >$51 Billion dollars over the next 10 years from the feds
> >to pay for health insurance for the poor and unemployed.
> >And that was grants, not loans but free money.
>
> How is that a 'crime'? What strings came with the money (there is no
>
> >>If Obama would follow Nixon's example, he won't get impeached either.
>
> >Oh, so you're all upset over a few overzealous IRS agents eh?
> >Wow, crime of the century.
>
> >How does that compare to this republican crime? In my
> >state of Florida, our Tea Party governor refused to accept
> >$51 Billion dollars over the next 10 years from the feds
> >to pay for health insurance for the poor and unemployed.
> >And that was grants, not loans but free money.
>
> such thing as 'free money')?
>
> Glad to see that abuse of power doesn't bother you when you don't like
> the victims of it. One hopes you get a personal example of it some
> day.
We already know you've been a rape victim, it's obvious, why you keep
reminding everyone is not helpful to you.
Saw a good Op Ed on this earlier today about how these "charities" are
so badly abused. And yes, there are, in fact some of these that
support Dems, of course there are. There are, in fact, more
conservative ones, Rove's example ( he led the way naturally ) being
taken up first and strongest by fellow travelers. When things are
weighted 70/30 complaining of slant is specious. But that's no excuse,
not from this distance. We don't want this from our government. Except
of course when purging lefties of course. Then it's a-okay. Acorn?
Planned Parenthood? Agencies for consumers and citizens? Fuck em.
Now, is this IRS thing worse than the purging done by the Justice
Department un GW? I don't think so. And further, this IRS thing really
is a ground up thing, not top down. Nobody really thinks otherwise.
What people are trying to do is make Obama responsible for each and
every action by every Federal employee's actions, regardless. That's
plain overreach. Full stop. This does not pass any sort of smell test.
Now, what about the news agency emails? That's got some life IMO.
This op ed hoped that this might start a dialogue about the problem
these so called "non profit" organizations represent to our democracy.
Fat chance of that.
tutall
May 15, 2013, 1:28:07 AM5/15/13
to
>
> This op ed hoped that this might start a dialogue about the problem
> these so called "non profit" organizations represent to our democracy.
>
>
Decent discussion on this:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/14/15229/2561
jonathan
May 15, 2013, 11:47:34 AM5/15/13
to
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:au36p89strrtaf07m...@4ax.com...
> "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><ohar...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:5e7d690f-b63b-4695...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>If Obama would follow Nixon's example, he won't get impeached either.
>>>
>>
>>Oh, so you're all upset over a few overzealous IRS agents eh?
>>Wow, crime of the century.
>>
>>How does that compare to this republican crime? In my
>>state of Florida, our Tea Party governor refused to accept
>>$51 Billion dollars over the next 10 years from the feds
>>to pay for health insurance for the poor and unemployed.
>>And that was grants, not loans but free money.
>>
>
>
>>
>><ohar...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:5e7d690f-b63b-4695...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>If Obama would follow Nixon's example, he won't get impeached either.
>>>
>>
>>Oh, so you're all upset over a few overzealous IRS agents eh?
>>Wow, crime of the century.
>>
>>How does that compare to this republican crime? In my
>>state of Florida, our Tea Party governor refused to accept
>>$51 Billion dollars over the next 10 years from the feds
>>to pay for health insurance for the poor and unemployed.
>>And that was grants, not loans but free money.
>>
>
> How is that a 'crime'?
A million people a year not having health care, not a crime?
Are you joking? How many times have we heard about the
high infant mortality rates compared to other countries?
That's the definition of a crime against humanity.
> What strings came with the money (there is no
> such thing as 'free money')?
an unfunded mandate, that is...once the repubs get in
power they plan on getting rid of Obamacare which
will make it an unfunded mandate...of their own doing.
I'm not sure what term to apply to that kind of twisted
logic? But it turns my stomach, our governor also turned
down $10 billion in free money (grants) for job creation
to reduce unemployment using the same reasoning.
At the time Florida had 10% unemployment, and Gov Scott
said 'we don't need it'. Keep your filthy democratic money.
That's just a sickness, nothing less, to not help people
when you can with just the flip of a pen. And this from
a governor that made his billion dollar fortune running
one of the largest HMO's that bilked the feds for billions
in medicare fraud. He got rich off the poor, now he
sticks it to them at every turn, even reducing unemployment
benefits from 49th least in the country, to dead last
just to send a message to big business.
The country voted on Obamacare when they reelected
the President.
>
> Glad to see that abuse of power doesn't bother you when you don't like
> the victims of it. One hopes you get a personal example of it some
> day.
>
the top, and a few overzealous or incompetent employees
violating policies. But now the repubs can hold lots of
hearings and not have to do a thing for the nation, like usual.
Just what's in it for themselves. Ingratiate themselves
to the rich and powerful while they can, so they can have
a nice plushy job waiting for them when they leave Congress.
> --
> You are
> What you do
> When it counts.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
May 15, 2013, 1:11:31 PM5/15/13
to
Bill...and you hoped no one would call you on it. Even after 3 people
challenged you, you still did not say "I might be incorrect", and
you firmly stood by your gross lie.
You are a liar, skelton.
;-)
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
May 15, 2013, 2:16:50 PM5/15/13
to
In article <-sCdnR9J1vgmXA7M...@supernews.com>,
"Dr. Vincent Quin, PhrauD." on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:15:42 AM
spewed
but baby, isn't every one of your posts prefaced by a lie?
"Dr. Vincent Quin, PhrauD." on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:15:42 AM
spewed
peter skelton
May 15, 2013, 5:11:25 PM5/15/13
to
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." wrote in message
news:-sCdnR9J1vgmXA7M...@supernews.com...
lies.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
May 16, 2013, 9:18:15 AM5/16/13
to
it you don't get a free pass with "I mis-remembered" or "I heard
it somewhere". You knew the gravity of your statement and
had a responsibility to double check before repeating the lie.
Your repeatedly doing so makes you a liar...one who freely repeats lies.
end of morality lesson
;-)
peter skelton
May 16, 2013, 11:17:47 AM5/16/13
to
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." wrote in message
news:OtednUH3yZwNQQnM...@supernews.com...
the fact that it is not verifiable from the source and his
opinion that it did not make a difference because the German
plans were probably already cast if & when it occurred. I'm
inclined to agree with Keith's second point, although that's
not relevant to the treason question at hand. I disagree
with him on the other point because I cannot discern what a
profit a German general would make in Feb. 1940 by
discrediting one of the few Nazi sympathisers in Britain's
upper aristocracy. A deliberate lie seems less likely than a
leak.
It is absolutely true, beyond any dispute, that the Duke's
behaviour in Portugal was disgusting enough that he was
threatened with Court Martial if he did not return to the
UK. He was then packed off to The Bahamas to keep him out of
circulation.
You seem willing to tell any lie, no matter how disgusting,
to prove yourself a complete jackass. Consider your mission
accomplished.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
May 16, 2013, 8:11:11 PM5/16/13
to
saying he intentionally leaked military secrets and (3) you
lied by inferring a cite was easily available.
son, you're an habitual liar...QED
;-)
peter skelton
May 16, 2013, 8:50:42 PM5/16/13
to
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." wrote in message
news:F7ednY-sBsUK6AjM...@supernews.com...
there is no lie to vile for you.
Message has been deleted
0 new messages