RE: Impeachment? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


mnottertail -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 7:50:08 AM)

Here is a hint for you, apparently starting with the OP and continuing thru the thread, you  have turned out to be wrong at every point, along with your breitbart offal and to this very point.


You get your head out of your ass, show me where any of this is more than fanciful neo-con joe the plumber fairytail, and where I missed the boat, and I will remove my foot from my throat.   




Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 7:52:56 AM)


Perfect example, anything but address the topic of the thread.

Thank you mnot, thatll do. [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Here is a hint for you, apparently starting with the OP and continuing thru the thread, you  have turned out to be wrong at every point, along with your breitbart offal and to this very point.


You get your head out of your ass, show me where any of this is more than fanciful neo-con joe the plumber fairytail, and where I missed the boat, and I will remove my foot from my throat.   




mnottertail -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 7:55:31 AM)

The topic of this thread, as I understand it is impeachment of Obama.

On what fucking possible constitutional grounds?


Game over. Or address some actual grounds, all other postings you have made to this point carry no point in fact.

It would be like looking for 'Dutch' Reagan's Haarlem birth certificate. 




Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 8:06:47 AM)


Really, you should try reading some of the thread, at least a few pages of it before commenting.




mnottertail -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 8:11:18 AM)

I did.  That is why I am posting what I am posting, there are no possible constitutional grounds for impeachment.  




slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 10:29:40 AM)

Which has been pointed out time and time again to the sane one...no constitutional grounds for impeachment...but of course that is not the true purpose or agenda of the thread....what sanity is going for here is a lame attempt to show some sinister hypocrisy on the part of the left in general,and specifically from the left here on these pages.
In order to accomplish this sanity must draw a parallel between Bush's invasion of Iraq in search of fictitious wmd and Obama's specific and requested humanitarian aid in the form of a NFZ in Libya.
Now anyone with half a brain realizes this can not be accomplished so sanity resorts to what he does best....lying ,denying,twisting and outright obfuscation of the facts.
It is a dance and an exercise we are all familiar with.....I myself refer to it as the "sanity shuffle".....first he mixes in some lame ass drudge report....than he makes some bullshit claim of his own...when he is called on his lack of factual claims...he outright lies and denies what we all have read within his own previous posts(he will even quickly edit posts so as they reflect the new and improved sanity reality)....It's a tired act,and I have grown oh so very weary of it.....so lets call a spade a spade(and let the chips fall where they may)
He is guilty of intellectual dishonesty,he has no interest in truth,nor in facts...his only reason for being here is to wage his own little cultural war,one in which he and his like minded brethren represent mom,apple pie and the American way.....and which his opponents are libtards,socialists and commies.
I am proud to claim membership in the latter group [:D].





Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 11:26:45 AM)


You have time to write this long rambling derail but when asked for specific examples of any of these wild eyed accusations of yours you suddenly have no time?

Well, make up your mind. Which is it mike? You have time to post, or you dont have time to post. Why cant you get a little more specific?

Where have I lied or denied what Ive posted?

This should be super easy for you if I thats all I ever do, as you are trying to claim.

We are waiting...




slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 11:36:31 AM)

"no time to post"....Hell sanity I am all over the whole fucking thread(another distortion of yours)....I do have this nasty habit of breaking to eat,shit ,frolic sleep and generally live what I refer to as a real life.
There is no need to cite specific examples....the thread is here for all who are interested to see and the lovely Lucy managed to re post your double dealing over the Clinton Invasion fiasco.
You screaming and whining that know one will step up and accept your challenges does not equal fact......as I said you are inherently dishonest in your body of work here.The reputation you have earned for that dishonesty,alongside your shrill and over the top partisanship is well deserved.




Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 11:40:37 AM)


Right, "no need to cite examples"

Thats the exact sort of slimy bs youre trying to smear me with, mike...

Lucys example was lame to the nth degree, did I edit a post? Yes, I did - everyone edits posts, I never denied that I edited that post and also pointed out that when someone edits a post thats noted below it.

Pointing out that someone edited a post is childish.

Got anything better than a post edit, mike?








mnottertail -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 11:40:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
You have time to write this long rambling derail but when asked for specific examples of any of these wild eyed accusations of yours you suddenly have no time?


I might ask the same of you mr cutandpaste.  It is not a violation of sorities, is it to provide specific credible  citations and examples for your wild eyed accusations?




Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 11:44:00 AM)


If he is going to accuse someone of constantly lying etc a few examples is not a lot to ask for mnot.

Dont you think?




slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 11:46:52 AM)

 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Right, "no need to cite examples"

Thats the exact sort of slimy bs youre trying to smear me with, mike...

Lucys example was lame to the nth degree, did I edit a post? Yes, I did - everyone edits posts, I never denied that I edited that post and also pointed out that when someone edits a post thats noted below it.

Pointing out that someone edited a post is childish.

Got anything better than a post edit, mike?





Has the thread I am currently speaking of (and posting to) been pulled.What need is there for me to cite the examples,anyone with any doubt or interest(I must assume that the number of posters unfamiliar with your bullshit is rapidly shrinking)in the facts here is free to go back and follow the thread.
No need to smear you at all oh sane one.....all I need do is keep tweaking your nose and watch you fashion the loop around your own lying neck.




Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 11:50:27 AM)


You are the slimy liar mike [sm=liar.gif]

Its hilarious that you cant back up your bs lies smear and slander about me






slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 12:04:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You are the slimy liar mike [sm=liar.gif]

Its hilarious that you cant back up your bs lies smear and slander about me



Hey,I am cool with standing behind what I post and allowing you to slink behind your post's
Once again I will state...the evidence is here......nigh near 12 pages of it(not to mention all of the other threads over the years in which you have splattered your bullshit)
Now the stage is yours....I feel no further need to respond to this particular whining from you.
The last word on the subject can be yours......so shoot off another regurgitation of all the usual bullshit, I'm sure some of your sycophants here will supp it up [8|]




Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 12:05:39 PM)


With mikes clumsy little derail behind us, heres another angle on the same premise:

quote:

Nobel Committee asked to strip Obama of Peace Prize



The Bolivian President and a Russian political leader have launched a campaign to revoke Obama's honour after the US attacked Libya.


Liberal Democratic Party of Russia leader and Vice-Chairman of the State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky released a statement today calling for the Nobel Prize Committee to take back the honour bestowed on US President Barack Obama in 2009.



Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/304909#ixzz1HMAshqz3


And chances the Nobel Committee will show some consistency?




mnottertail -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 1:31:09 PM)

If a liberal in Russia and a Bolivian president are against him, you know the neo-cons have got to be backing Obama, and changing political affiliation in droves.




Moonhead -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 1:57:16 PM)

They gave the Nobel to Kissinger, for Christ's sake: why would they have a problem with Obama acting like a right leaning monetarist tosspot?




DomKen -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 1:59:43 PM)

Hold on, I've been ignoring this thread since I read Sanity's silly op. Is he really claiming there are grounds for impeachment?




Lucylastic -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 2:11:32 PM)

Oh its way more hysterical and pathetic than that Ken
but really, not worth it.




mnottertail -> RE: Impeachment? (3/22/2011 2:12:52 PM)

I thought this whole thread was a dissing of Michelle's preserves canning methods.




Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875