Say goodbye to the internet as we know it
in [Golf]
|
From: bknight on 13 Aug 2010 09:20 On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:52:59 -0400, Horvath1758(a)net.net wrote: > >He was convicted of perjury, impeached, and disbarred. He spent his >last days in the White House in disgrace. None of your lies will >change this. > >Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmares. > OK Horvath. It only takes about two minutes, and an IQ of a rock to google this and see how absolutely wrong you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance in office, arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones lawsuit. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clintontimeline.htm February 12, 1999: President Clinton is acquitted of the two articles of impeachment. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats vote "not guilty." On the charge of obstruction of justice, the Senate is split 50-50. June 30, 2000: An Arkansas Supreme Court panel files suit to strip Bill Clinton of his license to practice law. The Arkansas State Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct recommended in May that Clinton's Arkansas law license be withdrawn, in the wake of accusations he gave misleading testimony under oath in the Paula Jones case. As far as Clinton being disbarred, it was by the Arkansas Supreme Court, and for a period of five years only. It was over the Paula Jones lawsuit, had nothing to do with the impeachment. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10904831/ Now, about his disgrace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Public_opinion Clinton's job approval rating ranged from 36% in mid-1993 to 64% in late 1993 and early 1994. In his second term, his rating consistently ranged from the high-50s to the high-60s.[102] After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton's rating reached its highest point at 73% approval.[103] He finished with an approval rating of 68%, which matched those of Ronald Reagan and Franklin D. Roosevelt as the highest ratings for departing presidents in the modern era.[104] BK
From: Fred Williams on 13 Aug 2010 12:27 R&B wrote: > For those who have dozed through the "net neutrality" debate, here's > the result. > > You're about to start paying more for the internet. And the internet > you get will be a tiered system, like cable television, where you pay > extra to access everything. > > No longer will you just be able to surf the 'net and go to any website > you want. The internet service providers (and telecoms) will be able > to "slow the faucet" to certain sites that don't pay a premium fee to > be served up with everything else. And some sites will just be > restricted altogether, unless you buy the "premium package" from your > ISP to be able to access them. > > Oh, and if your company has its own website, that website may or may > not be as accessible to just anyone as it's been up to now if your > company doesn't pay a fee to Google or Verizon (or whoever else gets a > piece of this action). > > Your tax dollars at work. > > This is what happens when a citizenry sleeps through a critically > important matter -- a matter some are arguing is the First Amendment > issue of the 21st century. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=2&hp > > It's almost here. > > And you can thank the corporatists in Congress -- both Republicans and > Democrats -- for siding with the telecoms on this. > > Douchebags. > > Randy http://www.pervices.com/docs/throttling_tech_brief.pdf
From: William Clark on 13 Aug 2010 14:05 In article <i43cmq$cip$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.26cefd4cd2561d6498a1f5(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > When are the Dems going to throw Rangel and Waters under the bus. Doing > > so would save them a couple of seats in November. > > They don't have to throw them under the bus, but it would be nice if they > stopped having rallies for them. You mean the ones where Obama tells Rangel it would be better for him to go now?
From: William Clark on 13 Aug 2010 14:09 In article <i43f8d$k6c$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-C68C0C.07522913082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article > > <1427564051303355565.467835nospam-nomail.com(a)news.suddenlink.net>, > > Moderate <nospam(a)nomail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Newt got canned by Republicans. Nobody is defending his actions. You on > >> the other hand continue the apology tour. Case closed. > > > > No, Newt is posing himself as the darling of the right, and is being > > received as such. The hypocrisy tour goes on. Case wide open. > > So Newt getting canned means nothing? Nice double standard. > > Now you grab at straws and come up empty. So Newt is not going around trying to drum up suppport for a Presidential run? Or being welcomed by you loons at all the Tea Party rallies? You need to keep your eyes open more.
From: William Clark on 13 Aug 2010 14:11
In article <MPG.26cefcee8b68156398a1f3(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <clark-C68C0C.07522913082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > > > > > So then why do you care what goes on behind the closed door of the WH? > > > > > > > > Oh, yes, I remember, it was a Democrat. > > > > > > Newt got canned by Republicans. Nobody is defending his actions. You on > > > the other hand continue the apology tour. Case closed. > > > > No, Newt is posing himself as the darling of the right, and is being > > received as such. The hypocrisy tour goes on. Case wide open. > > > > Newt isn't going anywhere, he is damaged goods. Tell that to your buddy Immoderate. He seems to have missed the memo. |