Say goodbye to the internet as we know it
in [Golf]
|
From: bknight on 13 Aug 2010 14:16 On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:57:49 -0700, Don Kirkman <donsno2(a)charter.net> wrote: >On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:59:00 -0400, Horvath1758(a)net.net wrote: > >>Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmares. > >Can't - they *are* the nightmares. Horvath probably has a bumper sticker that says: Palin for President 2012 - 2014 1/2 BK
From: William Clark on 13 Aug 2010 14:16 In article <ofha661gndr3greblnlld2kjo541tp5eq3(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > 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. There you go - "IQ of a rock". That's where he failed to qualify.
From: bknight on 13 Aug 2010 14:54 On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:24:48 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >In article <kf2b66h4qf3sk5ml3bjsmsurggbk16f93d(a)4ax.com>, > bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > >> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:56:30 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> >> >> He was impeached Alan, by the House of Representatives, which is the >> >> equivalent of being arraigned. Impeachment doesn't mean being found >> >> guilty. >> >> >> >> He was acquitted by the Senate, who tries on impeachment. >> > >> >I know the parallel isn't perfect, but being acquitted by the Senate is >> >the equivalent of being found not guilty in a court of law. >> > >> The parallel is exact, it is the equivalent of being found not guilty >> in a court of law. But he was impeached, which is the equivalent of >> being arranged. > >Sorry, but I disagree. To be impeached in the final analysis, you must >be found guilty. You may be sorry, but you are dead wrong. This is a common thought of people who don't understand the process. Articles of impeachment for the President are accusations, and those accusations are presented to the Senate for trial. You can be impeached and then acquitted. but if so you were still impeached. Period. To think differently is to show ignorance of the process. Google is your friend. >> >> >> >> He was disbarred for five years by the Supreme Court of Arkansas in >> >> regards to the Paula Jones lawsuit, which was completely separate from >> >> the impeachment proceedings. >> > >> >His license was suspended. To be disbarred is to have one's license >> >permanently revoked. >> >> You can argue semantics with the Arkansas Supreme Court. They say he >> was disbarred for 5 years. > >Reference? You reference it. BK
From: Moderate on 13 Aug 2010 15:14 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-9EED7D.14075813082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <i43ffi$kr1$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-0870F0.07511013082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > In article >> > <490353776303355409.232298nospam-nomail.com(a)news.suddenlink.net>, >> > Moderate <nospam(a)nomail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: >> >> > In article <19t8661161ho41l0nb8l8re3nnt9rf620o(a)4ax.com>, >> >> > >> >> > As I said, he was not convicted. All you can do is try to turn it >> >> > around >> >> > to weasel your way out, but it doesn't fly. >> >> > >> >> > Sorry, you lose. >> >> > >> >> > Again. >> >> >> >> Nixon wasn't convicted either. >> > >> > Nixon left town before the sheriff could get him. He clearly knew what >> > the end result would be. A very different case, especially as his >> > transgressions were criminal. >> >> I knew I could bait you into making the same accusations against Nixon >> that >> you chastise others for saying about Clinton. That is what we call a >> double >> standard. On with the apology tour. >> >> Like a marionette. > > How can you equate a sexual escapade with a consenting adult with trying > to subvert the course of democracy by rigging a Presidential election? > God, I knew you loons had few ethical principles, but this is too much > even for you. Dance puppet, dance.
From: William Clark on 13 Aug 2010 15:22
In article <0p4b66dac5qm58q8c47fgqbgnebkh6c1sf(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:24:48 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > wrote: > > >In article <kf2b66h4qf3sk5ml3bjsmsurggbk16f93d(a)4ax.com>, > > bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:56:30 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > > >> >> He was impeached Alan, by the House of Representatives, which is the > >> >> equivalent of being arraigned. Impeachment doesn't mean being found > >> >> guilty. > >> >> > >> >> He was acquitted by the Senate, who tries on impeachment. > >> > > >> >I know the parallel isn't perfect, but being acquitted by the Senate is > >> >the equivalent of being found not guilty in a court of law. > >> > > >> The parallel is exact, it is the equivalent of being found not guilty > >> in a court of law. But he was impeached, which is the equivalent of > >> being arranged. > > > >Sorry, but I disagree. To be impeached in the final analysis, you must > >be found guilty. > > > You may be sorry, but you are dead wrong. This is a common thought of > people who don't understand the process. > > Articles of impeachment for the President are accusations, and those > accusations are presented to the Senate for trial. You can be > impeached and then acquitted. but if so you were still impeached. > Period. To think differently is to show ignorance of the process. > Google is your friend. Which is the problem with our wingnut colleagues, who also think that impeachment means being found guilty, rather than it just being the equivalent of being indicted. |